From: "Ted Winslow" <egwinslow at home.com>
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> There is a logically coherent version of this whose starting point
is Kant's
> "sensus communis" - the capacity for "enlarged thought", for putting
> "ourselves in thought in the place of everyone else":
==========
Um, Buddha and Nagarjuna? I thought we lived in a global village.
Ian