koganbot | "Relativism: So What?": So What?

I keep telling myself I'm going to write a series of lj posts called "Relativism: So What?" but I keep putting off beginning this. I think a major reason for my block is that, though I can lay out the "intellectual" issues surrounding "relativism," my true goal is to get at "what are people's underlying reasons for thinking there's an issue here?" or to put it better, "people wouldn't bring up the issue of 'relativism' if they didn't think they were taking care of something by doing so, so how do I get them to think and talk about what it is that they think they need to take care of?" A subsidiary question might be, "Frank Kogan thinks he's taking care of something when he tries to get people to think and talk about what they think they're trying to take care of when they raise the issue of 'relativism,' so what is it that Frank Kogan thinks he's trying to take care of when he does this?"

Anyhow, four questions:
(1) What do you mean by "relativism," when you use the word (assuming you use the word)?
(2) Does the issue of relativism matter to you? If so, why does it matter?
(3) What do you think other people mean when they use the word "relativism"?
(4) What do you think they think is at stake?

Don't let your answers by overconstrained by the questions. I want to hear your ideas before giving mine.

By the way, someone on my flist (though I'm not on his) used the term the other day, clearly believed that "relativism" was a potent force in the world.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

the thing that's a "big deal" is control of the world, or lack of it -- from your immediate locality on outwards: what's being ceded, when you accept "everything is still at issue", isn't just your sense of control over your neighbourhood (or deaprtment), it's control over the very language you speak, as well opening up the nature of the courtoom to contest also -- who will even get to be a judge here? what are the rules, the laws, the means of effective persuasion?

i think the attachment to philosophy is an attachment to a belief that some (moral) things are stable and decided: that there are these old folks out there, with beards and togas and everything, who have established structures we can all agree we should stay within

(the "groves of academe" was a little wood outside athens where the eggheads gathered to yatter -- kind of like ilx with olives)

which makes the idea of depth (as regards philosophy) a kind of optical illusion: what's being relied on is that a system of thought or analysis has "stood the test of time", so shoukd be maintained; rather than how revolutionaries think, which is that the problems that immediately face us create their own systems of solution, and too bad what everything that came before

I'm not seeing where you came to grips with my question "why do people think that the esoteric philosophical point is a big deal?" - the esoteric point being that "you can't get beyond the axiom to a set of facts that are 'independent' of the axiom and that therefore can be used to test the axiom." The reason I think this is a mere esoteric mere philosophical point is that (a) there are other ways to test an axiom (e.g., adopt a competing axiom and see what happens) and (b) an axiom such as natural selection isn't weakened by the philosophical point that its facts aren't "independent" of the axiom. The only thing that could weaken the axiom is a viable competing axiom that appeared to do more than natural selection does. The esoteric point says nothing about whether natural selection is likely to be superseded someday, no more than the absence of such a point (that is, the presence of the belief that there are theory-independent facts) implies that natural selection won't be superseded. (All you need to supersede it would be something that explains the (supposedly independent) facts better.)

I've not read more than a paragraph of Karl Popper, but I'd think his view - that theories can only be falsified rather than confirmed, right? - would come closer to "nothing is decided yet" than would "relativism."

In any event, your answer to my question, "why is the esoteric philosophical point a big deal," seems to be, "because people esteem philosophy." I don't know enough about academia, but I'm skeptical that people esteem philosophy all that much or that people have much of a clue what modern-day philosophers actually talk about. And my assumption is that it's English and Art Departments where "relativism" gets talked about, not philosophy departments.

"Always to keep hold of Nurse, For fear of meeting something worse..."

i guess what i'm trying to get at is that it's more "bcz ppl disesteem the concept of 'non-independent facts' -- or think they do": they and not very clearheadedly place philosophical demands in the role of nurse --- they assume it has the big back-up arguments if they had the time or patience or inclination to master them

we're back at characterising other ppl's bad arguments: i'm hesitant to lay this out in the form "they must think THIS even though HAH they'd be wrong to because THIS step is clearly wrong" -- bcz that's not how i think wrong arguments work

(eep have to break off as my furniture is arriving)

what i'm proposing is less "esteem" than "isn't this as problem other smarter people have solved and therefore not my responsibility" -- which i'm suggesting is a fossil of an attitude somewhat built into the stones and corridors of the institution you're part of -- english and arts departments being late into the institution histrocially, and as a result ALWAYS somewhat over-aware of their "place" ("philosophy" was there from the START: and -- i just realised this -- plato's most famous disciple, aristotle, was alexander the great's tutor

i think the "esteem" is a structure-buttressing myth to keep outside forces (military, political) not so much at bay as onside: by keeping such fvorces believing that there are "bigger forces than might-as-right they don't want to tangle with; and indeed will do well to engage with respectfully" (cf how alexander got on)

this isn't all that's going on -- because this entire treats the content of philosophy as nugatory -- but, even as a negative reason for alleigance, i think it may have more shaping power than any positive reasons (not least bcz, as you have pointed out, the esteem seems to arrive from small knowledge: active modern philosophers don't believe they ought to be running everything; but they do often believe that the ppl who DO run things will do so most wisely when they have access to the esoteric grounding reasons philosophy provides) (arguably bcz these grounding reasons take the philosopher king AWAY from mere captious self-interest as a grounding drive)

this is totally a just-so story -- the situation we are "currently in" is one of unimaginably expanded literacy (compared even to the 19th century, let alone ancient greece) combined with a cosntant defensive semi-panic on the part of the long-term literate and/or learned classes; first, what manner of useless piffle are the newly literate classes using their literacy FOR; second, what myth do we hold out to THEM AND their untrammelled -- if currently sleeping or distracted -- might; third, plz to say we DON'T HAVE TO RESTRUCTURE cz it's too late for me to re-learn everything from the bottom up

i guess i see american pragmatism, jazz, rockwrite, as three different strategies to address this issue NON-defensively

"Relativism: So What?": So What?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject