Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:48:50 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Re: PKF: Slide time


>Not having heard anything from the list for a week or so now, I
>thought I might pose a question.
>
>How do we stop the slide from relativism into nihilism?

I think the problem is : how can we come back from "nihilism", or complete
relativism in general.

>Some time ago I corresponded with a person who called themselves a
>Marxist and they said this to me
>
> '... to make relativism the basis of the theory of knowledge is
>invevitably to condemn oneself either to absolute scepticism,
>agnosticism and sophistry, or, to subjectivism. Relativism as the
>basis of the theory of knowledge [the position you evidently take] is
>not only the recognition of the relativity of knowledge, but also the
>denial of any objective measure or model existing independently  of
>humanity to which our relative knowledge approximates. From the
>standpoint of naked relativism one can justify any sophistry.'
>
>And you know this still bothers me because I still don't have a good answer
>to it. At the time I suggested that what stops the slide from one to
>the other is simply to draw a line in the sand because we must stop
>somewhere.
>
>So I would be interested to hear what people on the list think. Is
>there a better answer to this question? Just how do we decide when
>there are a plethora of truth claims which to accept and which to
>reject as relativists?

As pure relativists, obviously, we have to accept all these truth claims.
And there is no third way between relativism and objectivism. But maybe we
can opt for a Protagoras-relativism, and choice to consider the values or
our society (or civilisation) as "objectively" good for us, for our
society. This is a PURELY relativist (idiosyncratic relativism), not a
solution between relativism and objectivism. The austrian philosopher
Friedrich von Hayek proposed something like that. I think Feyerabend was
the contrary of a nihilist, and I do not remember any of his books where he
said that he was a nihilist. He wasn't rejecting the very idea of value, he
proposed to accept all the values, BUT he said he had himself some
preferences. He refused to reject even the worst kind of fascism (see
"Farewell to Reason") but he said fascism was not what he prefered (in
french : "le fascisme n'est pas mon truc").

I think Popper is right when he wrote that if we want to speak of a free
society, we must think in terms of institutions. So, I ask which are the
better institutions to preserve the coexistence of different culture,
values, etc. ? For sure, a system in which the state is not interfering in
all the aspects of human life; probably a state organizing referendum each
time it is possible (Feyerabend suggested this solution, in Farewell to
Reason I think). A society where you wake up every morning and begin the
day with a few referendum on ethics questions, environmental questions,
social questions, tax questions, and so one. It is very clear that in this
society a considerable amount of static idiosyncrasy would persist, but
infinitely less that in the parlementarian system. Such a system would be a
"relativist democracy", far from complete relativism, but much more
relativist that any of the other existing system.

Drieu Godefridi

>Michael Eathorne-Gould
>(michael-AT-sol.otago.ac.nz)
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
>Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu


**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu