Date: Wed, 02 Nov 1994 09:23:39 +0000 (GMT) From: mkusch@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk To: H-verkko@sara.cc.utu.fi Subject: Re: Kiertokysely historismista?
Jukka Sarjala writes:
> Historia - minka alan/asian historia tahansa - on mielenkiintoisempaa
> silloin, kun kohdetta pitaa aikalaisenaan. Silloin avautuu kohteen vaka-
> vasti ottamisen mahdollisuus. Juuri tata kai Itkonen tarkoittaa.
That is an unconvincing argument. To take something seriously does not have to imply that one takes it to be contemporaneous, and to take something either as contemporaneous or seriously, does not imply that in writing that something's history one must measure its degree of truth in terms of some contemporary standards (that remain unquestioned). For some purposes that's advisable, for others it is not.
> Olen itse lopen kyllastynyt historismiin ja sen tukemaan relatiivisuus-
> teesiin.
If that is supposed to be an argument against relativism than Protagorean relativism is true.
> Luulisi,
> etta liberaalidemokratian luomasta harmaasta valinpitamattomyydesta olisi
> jo saatu kylliksi.
As someone who has had the bad fortune of defending relativism in front of more than one hostile audience, I am always fascinated by the fact that critics cannot agree to which political camp they should tie rela- tivism. Sometimes it is fascism (rhetorically especially effective if the defender of relativism speaks with a German accent), sometimes socialism, feminism (in Britain today), sometimes conservatism, and now liberal democracry. One cannot expect of philosophers to know any better, but of a historian ...
Martin Kusch Science Studies Unit University of Edinburgh