[MD] in defence of the "relative"

[Matt Kundert]

> What do you think Matt?  Is there a good reason why I should not call myself
> a 'relativist'?  

But Marsha: don't you already know my answer?

Every answer, reason I give, or you give, is relative to a 
set of considerations.  Right?  I've already elaborated at 
length in a number of different ways a single reason: most 
of the tradition of philosophical writings that extend 
outwards from Plato have tarred the term "relativism," 
which makes it troublesome.  You have, in response, 
articulated over and over that you do not consider that a 
_good_ reason, which as a relativist is only to say that the 
set of considerations that my aforementioned reason is 
itself relative to is a set of considerations that you do not 
_consider_ (important, good, etc.).

So what else would you have me say?  As a relativist, 
you should already _know_ that there are tons of good 
reasons to call yourself any number of things--it's just 
that not all of these are "in play" relative to the set of 
considerations you are using.  So what else is there?  
I've articulated the reason, you've said no thank you; 
I've elaborated the set of considerations, and you've 
said you don't care; and I've attempted to persuade you 
that these are considerations you might want to consider 
more carefully, and you've repeated that you don't care; 
and considering that _I_ don't care that much whether 
you call yourself a relativist or not, or anybody else 
really, _and_ the fact that I even lapsed into giving you 
support for it (though you have steadfastly not 
recognized it as such)--relative to this set of 
considerations, what else is there for me to say?  What 
else is there for you to know about what I think when 
you know what I think?  You already know that I think, 
with you, that the decency of "justified true belief" as a 
definition of knowledge is relative to a "frame-of-reference": 
all these things have been said in my responses.  I like 
humility, have been calling it fallibility, and yet I still don't 
want to call _myself_ a relativist.

What do _you_ think Marsha?  Is there a good reason why 
I _should_ call myself a 'relativist'?

Matt


> From: valkyr at att.net
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:33:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> 
> Hi Matt,
> 
> Sorry, starting a paragraph with 'It' was poor style.
> 
> The definition of relativity that Ron presented as the kernel of the
> definition of relativism, "A state of dependence in which the existence or
> significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another."
> Quality/experience/existence/reality is the interaction between unpatterned
> experience and patterned experience. That most obviously is relativism, from
> perceptual relativism to epistemological relativism to ontological
> relativism to ontological indeterminism: There is no answer, there never
> was, nor ever will be an answer.  ALERT ALERT ALERT  Knowing should be
> accompanied by a certain amount of humility!!!     
> 
> What, Matt, you label as "a decent definition of knowledge" would be decent
> dependent on your frame-of-reference: relative; "justified true belief" is
> most obviously relative to any number of possible justifications. Maybe it
> is because of relativism that adopting a practical approach to the possible
> tensions and conflicts between the individual and the collective is
> necessary. I may lean more towards the concerns of the individual, someone
> else may lean more towards the concerns of the collective, but all should
> carry in their hearts, imho, humility for the fragility of even our shared,
> conventional knowledge.  
> 
> What do you think Matt?  Is there a good reason why I should not call myself
> a 'relativist'?  
> 
> 
> Marsha   
>  
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert
> Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] in defence of the "relative"
> 
> 
> Marsha,
> 
> Marsha said:
> It says existence is indeterminate, like indivisible, 
> undefinable and unknowable, and the knowledge (patterns)
>  is interdependent, as in relative.
> 
> Matt:
> I take it "it" here refers to "relativism," as in "relativism 
> says existence is indeterminate..."?
> 
> That being the case, I take pragmatism to be saying the 
> same thing.  That is because I construe "Quality is 
> undefinable" as "mu": unask the question, i.e. this isn't a 
> good topic to ask questions about.  Existence qua existence, 
> Aristotle's Platonic-like quest for what being/existence was 
> as it relates only to itself, isn't profitable because, as you 
> say, things are interdependent--so when you construe 
> something as _independent_, dependent only on itself, you 
> come up with a null class, you come up with things that 
> appear "indeterminate, like indivisible, undefinable and 
> unknowable."  Same thing happened to Kant in the Critique 
> of Pure Reason: he found that if you treated something as it 
> was in itself, it became unknowable.  Hence his dualism 
> between noumena (the unknowable thing-in-itself) and 
> phenomena (knowable, relatable stuff).  That's how I 
> unpack "the same thing" that you said.  You might differ.
> 
> Marsha said:
> Now why don't you tell me what pragmatism says about 
> knowledge and existence?
> 
> Matt:
> In my words, it says that knowledge is interdependent, 
> by which a decent definition of knowledge might be 
> "justified true belief."  "Belief" stands in for the fact that 
> a _person_ is required for knowledge--somebody must 
> think something.  "Justified" stands in for the fact that 
> the only route we've in practice discovered to yield things 
> that are true is by sharing our thoughts with our 
> community, and then by a process of trial-and-error 
> called "justification," built up good cause for believing 
> such-and-such to be true.  "True" stands in for the fact 
> that you cannot reduce "truth" to "justification," even 
> though justification is the only route we know of to truth.
> 
> Matt
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2