Date: Wed, 02 Nov 1994 14:29:25 +0200 From: Jukka Tapani Sarjala <juksar@utu.fi> To: h-verkko@sara.cc.utu.fi Subject: On relativism
To Martin Kusch:
My point was that the protagonist of the ideal of absolute truth cannot be satisfied with any truths, because he has a regulative to search one. The relativist on the other hand has a tendency towards naive dogmatism, because he is not so worried about truth-questions. He so to say takes his own (modern) conception of reality for granted.
Martin wrote:
>To take something seriously does not have to
>imply that one takes it to be contemporaneous,
To take something contemporaneous is a good method to begin with. Perhaps it is the only way to open one's mind to the past. Differentia specifica will come later.
>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
I agree.
>> 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.
There are other paradoxs as well. When a relativist says that every proposition about the world has its limits, he throws also his own argument over the shoulder.
>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 ...
Relativism hasn't surely grown out of liberal democracy. But we cannot help that every political system/camp has its weaknesses.
Jukka Sarjala University of Turku