[MD] Relativism

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:08 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Marsha said to dmb:
> Are you going to use wiki as a source for your thesis?
>
>
>
> dmb says:
>
> No. And you're such a sweet generous soul for asking. Your concern for my welfare is so touching that I think I might cry. You love me, don't you? Tell me, is it motherly or sisterly or do I have a shot at romance?
>
> I used wiki precisely because it's so basic. Steve had accused me of having a weird idea of "relativism" and this suggested that my criticisms of Rorty's relativism were just a result of my own personal quirkiness on the topic. So, by quoting a very basic and common source saying why Rorty is seen as a relativist by many commentators I disproved his accusation. It proves that my position is common enough to be listed in commonly used, open and public source. Weird is just not the word for something so ordinary. As I told Steve already, relativism is the most common criticism of Rorty.

Steve:
Oh, so that's what you are doing. Of course relativism is the most
common criticism of Rorty. It is also the most common criticism of
James and every other pragmatist. What makes your conception of
relativism seem so strange to me is that you say you are a pragmatist
and a Pirsigian, yet you still find it interesting to ask, "is it
absolute or relative?" which ammounts to asking "is the quality in the
subject or the object?"

That's why I keep asking for you concise definition of relativism. It
is easy to see how an SOMer would call Rorty and James relativists
since they deny ontological objectivity, but I can't see how you can
give a pragmatic account of relativism that condemns Rorty and not
James and Pirsig.

I don't think that there is anything to fear about any of these
philosophers whether or not you think the term "relativism" is
something dangerous that we ought to accuse people of. They are all
able to make reasoned arguments on moral and intellectual issues.

For all your demonizing of Rorty, he has the same political views as
you. Do you think that he came to have his views in some different way
than you came to have the same views? Is his position against slavery
somehow on shakier ground than yours? I can't see how.


dmb said:
Well, your point can only be sustained by maintaining that Pirsig and
James are relativists and radical empiricists at the same time. Since
empiricism says our ideas are made true in experience, justification
is NOT simply relative to the persons or groups holding them. How do
you figure relativism and empiricism can be compatible?


Steve:
What a strange question. What makes you think that empircism is an
antidote for relativism? We all have different experiences, don't we?
Then what is true for me and what I am justified in believing to be
true based on my experience may very well not be what is true for you
and what you are justified in believing to be true based on your
experience.

Pirsig says exactly this in ZAMM, "People differ about Quality, not
because Quality is different, but because people are different in
terms of experience. He speculated that if two people had identical a
priori analogues they would see Quality identically every time." For
Pirsig, what you call "relativism" is not only compatible with
empiricism but is a consequence of it.

For anyone interedted in accusing others of relativism, Pirsig and
James are both relativists with respect to truth, so it really doesn't
matter whether we think they are relativists or not with regard to the
justification for believing those relative truths, but, nevertheless,
they are relativists with respect to justification and to second-order
justification in addition to truth for those who are still interested
in asking "is the quality in the subject or the object?" as you are.



You quoted Wiki:
"Some relativists claim that humans can understand and evaluate
beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural
context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree
of controversy.[1] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is
the doctrine that there are no absolute truths..."

Steve:
Is this not your view? You keep saying that truths are provisional.
That is a form of relativism for those who think that relativism is a
problem.



Steve said:
There is no way for you to define relativism in such a way that
condemns Rorty, as you are so eager to do, and simultaneously leaves
James and Pirsig above reproach. That is the only reason I can imagine
that you have continually refused to define the term relativism.


dmb says:

The definition of relativism is common property, not something I get
to decide. And the idea that I've refused to define it seems a little
bit insane.

Steve:
It is insane that you won't endorse a definition of relativism so that
I can know what you mean by the term and decide whether your
definition applies to Rory, James, or Pirsig. I suspect you will
simply continiue to refusse to provide a concise working definition
after being asked many, many times because you know that your
condemnation of your villain Rorty based on the term "relativism" will
also apply to your heroes Jamesa on Pirsig.




Steve said:
The so-called problem of relativism is a fake problem that can only be
articulated in SOM terms that Rorty, James, and Pirsig reject.


dmb says:

I disagree that relativism is a fake problem. I don't think it can
only be articulated in SOM terms...

Steve:
Then would you PLEASE articulate it!!!!



DMB:
 and I don't think Rorty rejects SOM as such. He just thinks the S can
never have access to the O. As Hildebrand explains it, Rorty's
position has to give a nod to objective reality so that it can argue
that our access to it is not just impracticable but impossible. The
Fish article about Rorty's pragmaitism in the New York times exposed
this same point. You have yet to address this crucial criticisms.

Steve:
Haven't I addressed it? Ok, Hildebrand has Rorty all wrong.



Steve said:
Again I suggest that the issue of concern ought to be moral clarity
rather than relativism. Moral clarity rather than relativism is the
cleavage term that will separate the liberal intellectuals that Harris
complains as "relativists" who can't say that female genital
mutilation is wrong from Pirsig, James, and Rorty who can all take a
stand and make reasoned arguments against such abominations.




dmb says:

Well, it is not at all clear what you mean by "moral clarity". Sounds
like nothing more than vague self-flattery.


Steve:
It means that Harris is right that there are lots of intellectuals out
there who won't take a stand on any moral issue. They believe that
slavery is wrong, but they think it is no more than like preferring
chocolate over vanilla. They are morally paralyzed by subject-object
metaphysics beacuse they have been taught to demand something called
"objectivity." This paralysis is not a disease that James, Rorty, or
Pirsig have.




DMB:
But you've been putting the question in terms of a flat earth, slavery
and you seem a bit obsessed with mutilated genitals, I suppose because
you're trying to crank up the heat. But to make these arguments you
have to resort to a very unRorty-like realism.


Steve:
These are just the paradigm cases for relativism with respect to truth
and for moral relativism, and you've failed the standard tests. Rorty
doesn't need realism to say that the earth is not nor never was flat.
For Rorty, to say that a belief is true is to say that no other habit
of action is a better habit of action.

DMB:
 Likewise, your insistence that truth must be kept separate from
justification is a notion that Rorty rejects.

Steve:
As for Pierce and James, Rorty thinks that claiming that a belief is
true cashes out as a claim that a belief is justified. Yet he thinks
that truth and justification are different concepts since what we have
been justified in believing sometimes turns out to not have beenm
true.


DMB:
Using Putnam and Pierce to defend Rortyism is using realism to defend
anti-realism.

Steve:
Rorty is neither a realist nor an anti-realist. To call him either one
is to beg the question against his pragmatism.


DMB:
Likewise, to invoke the "snow is white" iff snow is white equation is
to invoke the correspondence theory. The truth of the proposition
depends on its correspondence to external material facts.

Steve:
The truth of the proposition "snow is white" only depends on whether
or not snow is white. It does not involve a correspondence to any
reality that stands beyond human interests and desires such as our
needs to say and agree upon what color snow is.


Best,
Steve