Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:53:51 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Wolff <rwolff-AT-minerva.cis.yale.edu> Subject: Re: Market/planned (fwd) FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:41:45 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Wolff <rwolff-AT-minerva.cis.yale.edu> To: kevin quinn <kquinn-AT-bgnet.bgsu.edu> Subject: Re: Market/planned Rejecting foundationalism (absolutism) does mean to embrace SOME meaning of the term relativism (but not ANY meaning). That is, I do NOT think of relativism as some assertion of the equality or equivalency pf alternative theories (of efficiency or anything else). The idea that the rejection of foundationalism necessarily entails that kind of relativism that thinks of alternatives as equal and hence deduces that embracing any of the alternatives as pointless, unwarranted, etc. - that idea is one promoted by those who seek to make relativism so awful that everyone will stay with foundationalism/absolutism as the lesser evil. The relativism of which I speak is rather the view that perspectives always have and always will differ AND that we attach ourselves to one or another perspective (or mixtures) with passion because of the unique overdeterminations of us as individuals with particular needs, hopes, commitments, and felings that make one perspective rather than others dear to us. R. Wolff ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005