Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:04:44 -0600 Subject: Recent postings on Kant and relativsim From: Donald E Van Duyse <devanduyse-AT-juno.com> In recent postings, correct me if I'm wrong, I've heard Foucault associated with "moral relativism." I would like some qualification here. Isn't there a difference between "relativism" and "relativity?" Is Foucault best read in the latter sense? Definitions: Moral relativism argues that all moral assertions are equivocal, and one moral assertion will serve, arbitrarily, as well as the next. There are no grounds for choosing one perspective over another. Morality, in other words, is quite literally, an "ism," a flat, homogenous collection of sayings that lack inherent value, and bear no meaningful relationship to one another, except that which is imposed by individual bias or arbitrary variables. Moral relativity argues moral meanings are not fixed, nor are they arbitrary, but instead, are meaningful only in context. Moral assertions are appreciated as "relational." How do moral perspectives emerge in complex circumstances? How are moral meanings dynamically interrelated to other events? Relativism says blandly, "all meanings are equivocal." Relativity, on the other hand, says meanings are complicated by related events, that's how moral assertions arise. For relativity, the complexity of the whole is always greater than the putative sum of its parts. For relativism, it's the arbitrary naming of unrelated parts. "And is it not a plausible suspicion that if 'to be' were pointless and the universe void of meaning, we would never have achieved not only the ability to imagine otherwise but even the ability to think precisely this: that 'to be' is indeed pointless and the universe void of meaning." (Leszek Kolakowski, Metaphysical Horror, pg. 120) (Personally, I think if neo-Kantians stopped saving the world from the straw-man of "relativism," accepted the well-deserved kick in the butt from relativists like Foucault, and worked out their own explorations of "relativity," their arguments might be better served---e.g. what might Foucault, Chomsky, and the Critique of Pure Reason have to do with each other?) (Bryan, I don't know why you think homosexuality is immoral? It strikes me as an odd assertion to make on a Foucault list. Do you have a double ax to grind (Perhaps that of a Kantian and religious conservative?)
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005