Abrupt

The reason the label of "relativism" is avoided by many thinkers is because of its - apparently irreversible - association with self-defeating Protagorean relativism. Relativists suffer from the transcendental ambition. They want to win the game without playing it, and to do so, they climb out of Neurath's boat and announce to everyone else that it's floating nowhere.

But then they sink.
:boohoo:

Does relativism have to mean that? Well, no. It just does. I suppose that is why Rorty prefers to use terms like "contextualism", "intersubjectivism", and "antifoundationalism" instead. And in fact, most of what people say is good and right about relativism is far more accurately described as antifoundational.

A lot of people will tell you that Rorty has an annoying habit of taking others' ideas and twisting them out of shape to suit his purposes. If you want to find out about classical pragmatism, for example, the last person you want to read is Rorty. All of Rorty's comments on Dewey et al. should be read not so much as a piece of philosophical history, but rather as a way of understanding how Rorty relates his views to ideas that surfaced in their works. Well, once you see that Rorty doesn't really care about presenting philosophers' ideas the way those philosophers intended them to be presented, but rather the way he thinks is best, it's not at all surprising that many of the thinkers on whom Rorty leans turn around and criticize him (Dewey can't do that, but he's rolling in his grave, to be sure). It's not that Rorty has the wrong reading of those thinkers; it's just that he doesn't really agree with them.

So when you look at the Rorty/Davidson debate, you shouldn't think of it as there being two competing readings of Davidson, one of which is Rorty's and the other is Davidson's. What happens is Rorty looks at things that Davidson says; he likes some of them, and dislikes others. He takes those things that he likes and develops them in some direction, and then maybe Davidson develops them in a different direction. There's also the fact that Rorty and Davidson paint their philosophies against a very different landscape. Rorty comes to Davidson from his readings of the pragmatists, and he wants to call Davidson a pragmatist, but Davidson doesn't care about that. So Rorty's views on truth oscillate between the pragmatists' views, and Davidson's deflationary view. And then Rorty comes to Davidson with his metaphor of the incoherent Platonist, but Davidson doesn't care about that, either, because Davidson's view of Plato is very different. So Rorty thinks that he's transcended the realism/idealism distinction, and ends up talking like an idealist (this is where most of my beef with Rorty lies), whereas Davidson just thinks that the realism/idealism distinction doesn't make sense, so he ends up talking like a realist.

Well, the content of their theories didn't change - only their rhetoric did. Davidson never advanced either a coherence or a correspondence theory, even though he sometimes described himself as a coherentist and other times claimed that correspondence somehow fell out of his theory anyway ("correspondence through coherence", I think it was). He doesn't say that anymore. I understand Rorty's view on truth less, and I see that it has changed from being more pragmatic to being more deflationary, but this probably has to do with Rorty making an effort to integrate Davidson's views into his own, rather than with any specific deal.

P.S. I wouldn't mind joining the other thread, but my knowledge of continental philosophy and literary criticism is probably not up to par. Most of what I know, I know through Rorty and analytic critics.

Primal

Okay you can say that, but then you are saying this third viewpoint priveldges one over another.





Yes one is, mainly that all positions are relative. John, how else is relativism "proven"? So far you;ve said "by experience" but you are merely interpreting that experience as relative....I could interpret my experiences as absolute.

Also, are you likewise saying relativist reasoning doesn't end at any given....but likewise does not go on forever? What does it do then John?




No that's what the empiricist does John. And the relativist to be consistent must also admit the viewpoint "we don't know a priori" is privedged(more accurate then) over the viewpoint that we do. Also John everyone adheres to a priori beliefs except solipsists...are you a solipsist? Do you think the world is literally what you see and hear and disapears when you close your eyes?

Primal

The problem is though, the SEP didn't offer a definition of relativism. You merely quoted a formula of what is meant by "relative" that is actually very cicular. Also I don't see why the SEP has more authority then the IEP on this matter, and though I've yet to meet a relativist that defines himself this way verbatim, such are usually the implications of his/her theories as well as the statements of some leading relativists(postmodernists/structuralists). I am likewise yet to meet a creationist that defines creationism as pseudoscience as well.

John Page

But I'm not taking the third viewpoint - I'm merely concluding (objectively) that objectivist methods result in views that can never be completely objective! You seem to be implying that relativists claim a completely objective view - well I for one am not!
Relativism is not proven, more true or claimed to be superior. However, trying to be objective about the limits of objectivism, and relativism seems to reflect the status quo. I can see how you might consider your experiences are absolute to you but that necessarily makes them subjective!
I take the view that instances of human thought are limited by the physiology of the mind/brain. Just because you can't see the ends, doesn't mean it goes on forever.
I'm not sure this is true, even a solipsist.....

Never mind, the relativist understands the lack of rigorous justification for any particular a priori over any other. I don't think empirical methods and relativism are incompatible, IMO a relativist doesn't dispute factual data but warns their interpretation is always contextual w.r.t. the observer.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Rorty applied to some of the literature we're starting to look at in the other thread would be interesting. Speaking for myself, I would look forward to this kind of input in the discussion.

AnthonyAdams45

See, the problem as I see it is:

If it is possible that relativism does not mean that all systems are equal, which, a postition for which I assure you the vast majority of relativists do not care to argue, and unless you can show that the position I have provided is not relativism by some neutral means, that is, do not say I am not a relativist because I do not argue that all systems are equal as that characterization of relativism is exactly what is at issue between us, then not only have none of your criticism of my relativism touched anything, but neither has your debate with John Page on a privileged position touched anything of importance.

So, either show my position not to be relativism, show it to be reducible to "all systems are equal" or acknowledge that, at least in this case, and perhaps others, your characterization of relativism is wrong. Of course, then, you'll see that John is right.

John Page

Ant:

Thanks for providing an alternative viewpoint of relativism , which may serve to make its essence clearer. If I might offer a small change to the above. viz. "Of course, then, you'll see that John is a relativist". If I was right, this would show that I had a provable, priviledged position!

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

Well, of course!! How sloppy of me!!!

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for the lesson, but like i said before: i've read Rorty, Davidson, et al, and i'm aware of these criticisms.

I doubt if anyone will mind you joining in and giving your opinion on what's been said, however much you do or don't "know" about the topics. As regards Rorty, perhaps you'd like to join me in a debate subsequently? I don't have time at the moment, with the other thread still going, but soon enough i'd be glad to see if we can start something. Specifically, i refer to your claim previously:

I'll probably agree with you but i'm happy to take the other side and do what i can to save Rorty in the interest of debate. What say you?

Abrupt

I don't know why you sound so defensive. You asked me some questions and I answered them; that's all.

I say good luck.