[MD] Emptiness & Quantum Mechancics

[MarshaV]

On Oct 7, 2010, at 3:32 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha:
> You'll also notice in the Wiki piece the long list of advocates for various types of relativism.
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Yes, and you'll notice that some of my fiercest rivals are among those advocates of relativism.

Marsha:
I have no idea who are your "fiercest rivals'?  The 'list of advocates' indicates that the word is not gone into obscurity.  I've read a half-dozen books in support of forms of relativism other than absolute relativism.  The concept is alive and well.  If you prefer contextualism I can respect that, but it doesn't make my using the word 'relative' or 'epistemological relativism' wrong, only different perspectives.   And if I use the word, it demonstrates no disrespect towards you on my part.


> Relativism is THEE main reason I dislike Rortyism. That's what Sam Harris doesn't like about Rorty. Rorty thinks "there is nothing of interest to be said about truth in general". The relativism article you cited gives Rorty his own section:
> 
> 
> "Philosopher Richard Rorty has a somewhat paradoxical role in the debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views by many naïve commentators, but has always denied that relativism applies to much anybody, being nothing more than a Platonic scarecrow. Rorty claims, rather, that he is a pragmatist, and that to construe pragmatism as relativism is to beg the question. 
> 
> [Three quotes from Rorty]
> 
> '"Relativism" is the traditional epithet applied to pragmatism by realists'
> 
> '"Relativism" is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.'
> 
> 'In short, my strategy for escaping the self-referential difficulties into which "the Relativist" keeps getting himself is to move everything over from epistemology and metaphysics into cultural politics, from claims to knowledge and appeals to self-evidence to suggestions about what we should try.'
> 
> Rorty takes a deflationary attitude to truth, believing there is nothing of interest to be said about truth in general, including the contention that it is generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of warrant or justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of truth, and that justification is relative; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty.In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity he argues that the debate between so-called relativists and so-called objectivists is beside the point because they don't have enough premises in common for either side to prove anything to the other."


Marsha:
Rorty is your rival, not mine.  And even if Rorty is your rival, that is no justification for deliberately conflating epistemological relativism with absolute relativism.  In fact it seems to me a perfect demonstration of making truth relative to a favored pattern and against its detractor.   


> 
> dmb said previously:
> ... The dispute is about epistemological relativity and its relation to the pragmatic theory of truth. That is the context in which "relativity" means there is no standard by which to measure things like truth and moral values. As you may have noticed, I think relativism is a very bad idea with very bad consequences and I think the pragmatic theory of truth is NOT a form of relativism. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's what Sam Harris was complaining about, you know? A relativist has no basis on which he can condemn those Albanian vendetta customs or female genital mutilation or torture by the American military or the Nazis or anything else. He's morally and intellectually paralyzed by his own relativism. So Sam is trying to find a scientific way to condemn objectionable cultural practices. He's trying to find a way to use "facts" against cruelty and injustice. And he condemns Rorty's brand of pragmatism because of the relativism he sees in it. As you may have noticed, I'm very sympathetic with Sam Harris on both counts. I suppose "science" has to be taken very broadly to include philosophy and intellectual work in general and I like to think he'd like the original theory of pragmatic truth a lot more than he likes Rortyism, but I'm still very sympathetic with Sam. 


 

Marsha:
I'm not studying W. James, Radical Empiricism or Pragmatism.  I prefer the Eastern philosophical approach, and a Quantum connection.   


Thanks.   



Marsha
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

 
___