> What does it matter what he is as compared to what he says? I look at what
> people say.
>
pointing out who he is might be a little relevant, since he is an english and law professor (or was. or at least so i believe), not a philosopher. philosophical relativism might be a larger and different beast than the relativism encountered in literary criticism or even postmodernism. but moving along...
>>
>>1. requires responsibility for taking our fallibility seriously. we must
>>be committed to our reasoned argument, but willing to listen to others.
>>and we must be willing to listen without denying the otherness of those
>>others.
>>
> COMMENT. Our fallibility means the fact that we can make errors. But we can
> make errors only if there is such a thing as getting it right. But if there
> is getting it right then it would seem there is truth.
>
why does getting it right imply there is "truth"? because what is right is what is truthful? forgive me if i am wrong, but this seems a bit circular.
> If relativism entails that what values are "valid" are contextually
> determined by culture, socety or whatever then people in a culture that does
> not value reasoned argument surely would reject this proposal. What possible
> justification could there be for condemning them or even being critical of
> them except by privileging the values of another society that accepts the
> value of reasoned argument?
i would agree that you would use the values of your culture to examine and critique another culture. only if one holds that one's values are universal (at least until proven "wrong"), or that cultures are static entities that have fixed capabilities (leading to the problem of incommensurability), do problems arise. perhaps you use imaginative poetry to convey a point and clinch an argument whereas i value socratic dialogue. but you will have a problem convincing me of your point only if (1) you have no means to absorb socratic dialogue into your culture or (2) i have no means to absorb poetic expression in my culture or (3) i remain rigid, perhaps due to my belief in the universality of my method or culture, and consciously curtail all means to develop an appreciation of poetry.
of course the use of the term 'reason' itself is ambiguous, just as the term 'truth' is.
--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.