"Relativism: So What?": So What?

[koganbot]

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.

Comments

[ludickid.livejournal.com]

I can tell, and not just from your tag, that you've read Thomas Kuhn. When you shift from moral relativism to scientific relativism, you're getting a tad out of my comfort zone (only because I've read a lot less philosophy of science than I should), but yeah, the principle is the same, and you can refer also to Derrida's claim -- feeding off of Kuhn's writing about paradigm shifts -- that what really happens in scientific study isn't the discovery of a new truth, but the development of a new language by which to describe observations, meaning that the whole thing is simultaneously becoming more "true" in a scientific way, and more "relative" in a linguistic way.

There's certainly nothing wrong with using something as a practical universal while at the same time admitting that it's based on something unverifiable or perspective-specific. The problem with some (not all) anti-relativists is that they get so hung up on the concept of there not being an ultimate absolute and discoverable truth that they ignore the fact that 'truth' isn't all that interesting or useful a concept. Richard Rorty is my guide here, and the philosopher has the most interesting things to say about the issue: he essentially argues that, since they disagree on so many basic premises, relativist and absolutists have nothing to say to each other, and so there's no point in them even having a conversation. Instead, they should focus on pragmatic issues, ignoring whether or not decisions should be made or programs should be pursued because they meet some 'truth' qualification and more whether or not they have an agreed-upon use value to which their absolute value isn't especially relevant.

[koganbot]

I've just added the "rorty" tag. I wrote about him a little bit here, if you're interested:

The Death Of The Philosopher

[koganbot]

Long ago in a distant galaxy I created a thread on Thomas S. Kuhn. I think it's one of the best things I've written. Also I believe it's relatively easy to read: I actually find the principles clearer when applied to science than elsewhere, despite my usually not understanding the science itself.

Also, while I'm in link-happy mode, if anyone is interested, here are my first two Department Of Dilettante Research posts, the second one of which is very Rorty heavy:

Department of Dilettante Research, Part 1

Department Of Dilettante Research, Part 2: Depart Harder