Date: Tue, 8 Dec 1998 13:57:17 +1100 (EST)
Subject: Re: PKF: Feyerabend


Re David's and Drieu's answers to Russell:

Feyerabend, as I read him, did defend what I read as
relativism about rationality - in fact, provided one of the
best arguments for it - in Science in a Free Society;
the relativism that is most obviously self-defeating,
though, is relativism about truth, which I doubt he
ever espoused, and he certainly and explicitly attacked
it in his later writings.

As for anarchism - I think that in repudiating it he was
partly forgetful of and partly reneging on his position
as written in Against Method.  It's crystal clear that the
kind of anarchism he was recommending was a dadaist
kind, and that in passages (as where he expounds the
dadaist position and then speaks of the epistemological
dadaist) he is endorsing it unreservedly.

But whether or not he espoused it, I am prepared to argue
that epistemological anarchism is not incoherent.

Various kinds of ethical position - situation ethics,
utilitarianism - are clearly coherent (whether or not they're
correct), and say that there are no _rules_ (where a rule is
a prohibition attached to some fairly readily ascertainable
description of an action) that are _in all circumstances_
valid.

Epistemological anarchism is centrally saying about
methodology what these positions say about ethics.
Feyerabend made it clear that quite a few "rules of thumb"
are "as a rule" useful, but he insisted that creative thought
not be absolutely _bound_ by them; and I don't think he
ever clearly repudiated _this_.

Best Wishes,
	John Fox

School of Philosophy
La Trobe University
Bundoora, Vic 3083
Australia


**********************************************************************
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