>
> If "there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival
> interpretations of an event is the true one", how can we take the "true
> measure" of an act and "describe it accurately" or discover "the particular
> lived values that unite us and inform the institutions we cherish and wish
> to defend", "the record of aspiration and accomplishment that makes up our
> collective understanding of what we live for"?
>
not to start a "Truth" vs "truth" discussion, but can we not act given our contingent notions of truth, right, wrong, accuracy, etc? of course that means our actions have to be tentative, not righteous. is that bothersome? PKF (not a postmodernist) responds to the incommensurability issue in these matters by pointing out that "potentially each culture is all cultures", and it is possible to engage in action based on contingent or subjective notions.
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.