Fish weighs in

[Ken Hanly]

Except that it has nothing to do with relativism. A non-relativist could do
the same thing. Relativism simply does not mean putting oneself in someone
elses shoes. Period. Unless Fish is Alice.
I agree with Winslow that Fish's piece is a bundle of contradictions. I will
never understand why anyone ever takes such writing seriously. The marvel in
this Fish piece is that it is at least clear as well as contradictory.

Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Remick" <carlremick at hotmail.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 10:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fish weighs in


> >From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> >
> >New York Times - October 15, 2001
> >
> >Condemnation Without Absolutes
> >BY STANLEY FISH
> >
> >... But if by relativism one means the practice of putting yourself in
> >your adversary's shoes, not in order to wear them as your own but in
> >order to have some understanding (far short of approval) of why
> >someone else might want to wear them, then relativism will not and
> >should not end, because it is simply another name for serious thought.
>
> Beautifully put.
>
> Carl
> >
> >Stanley Fish, dean of the college of liberal arts and sciences at the
> >University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author, most recently, of
> >"How Milton Works."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>