[MD] Philosophy and Abstraction

[MarshaV]

dmb,

Within the MoQ, truth(sq) is considered relative, and within Buddhism conditioned(conventional) truth is considered relative, and since static quality and  the conditioned in Buddhist philosophy are synonymous, instead of defending James and Pirsig against the accusation of relativism, one should defend relativism against SOM attack of immorality.   


Marsha   



On Dec 15, 2010, at 4:56 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> dmb,
> 
> Do you mean "relativism" as in the seven-word dictionary definition? 
> 
>     –noun Philosophy .
>      any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with 
>      individuals and their environments.
> 
> Or do you mean "relativism" defined relative to some other criteria?
> 
> 
> Marsha  
> 
> 
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 5:02 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> 
>> I don't think that's fair. I only described Sellars and Rorty using the terms they use for themselves and those labels don't just "smell" like scientific materialism, they declare it quite openly. (Verbal behaviorism, non-reductive physicalism, eliminative materialism are terms they use. Again, these are not my cups of tea and I think that's a very different perspective but it's not slanderous to point this out.) Platonism, on the other hand, is explicitly attacked in all kinds of ways by Pirsig. He even goes after Plato personally, by name. 
>> 
>> Do you really think of these differences as "elusive smells"? It's not a black and white sort of thing, but its like the difference between musical genres. There are small differences like the one between Bakersfield country and Nashville country. Then there are big differences, like the one between Mozart and The Clash or jazz and polka. Different doesn't mean worse, although there is definitely some bad music and the various genres suit various temperaments and even differing demographic profiles. Philosophies are like that too. In this case we have one pragmatist who says the fundamental nature of reality is outside of language and another who says it's language all the way down. See, I don't quote Rorty's critic's to use "relativism" as mere slander. And it doesn't even matter if it's exactly true or not. That's the sense that I get from reading his texts and from reading about his text and relativism does not suit my tastes in philosophy. I think that relativism is a cha
>> rge against which Pirsig and James have to be defended. And so temperament plays a role in our arguments. I can agree with many points, as in the case of Sellars, but it still makes me bristle. And I'm pretty sure that behaviorism and physicalism are the kinds of things Pirsig had in mind in his critique of scientific objectivity. These are all a part of putting the differences on display, both broadly and in specific terms. 


 
___