Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:09:57 -0600 Subject: Re: Recent postings on Kant and relativism From: Donald E Van Duyse <devanduyse-AT-juno.com> _______________ Larry wrote: I do not think that all relativistic theories can be written off as simply giving in to crude impulses. At a minimum, one would want a psychological analysis of how sophisticated people can fall into such traps. __________________ I did not mean to suggest that relativistic theories give in to crude impulses. But any kind of relativistic theory (ontological, epistemological, moral, linguistic) can be misconstrued. The Worf-Sapir Hypothosis, for example is not best applied as a theory about how all cognition and culture can be collapsed into an "originating" linguistic causality. I think Worf, at least, would allow that cognition and perception can exceed the orderliness of language. At the same time, it is impossible for us to imagine a state of cognition or culture that is not significantly determined by linguistic structures. It might be more interesting to talk about how the degree of linguistic determinism fluctuates, and what competing variables might occasionally upset the presumed ratio. How would I know, at a given point, when I am more or less linguistically determined? I am more interested in problems of "linguistic uncertainty" than simple determinism. And that distinction comes pretty close to the difference beteween relativism, as an "ism" (like determinism) vs. relativity, as an attempt to appreciate a state of flux.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005