Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:04:21 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Wolff <rwolff-AT-minerva.cis.yale.edu> Subject: Re: Relativism In reply to Schwartz, I cannot, of course, throw at him words of the sort her throws at me - for example, "wrong." To do that, as Schwartz's comments show, slips an absolute in despite lip service to the refusal of foundationalism. Schwartz rehearses the usual defenses of absolutist judgements on anything from efficiency to "error" to "plausibility". There is, sadly for Schwartz, no way out: either you accept the relativity of all judgement to the perspective/standpoint/commitments of the judger or else you imagine, seek, and - typically - find some non-relative (i.e. absolute) standard (i.e. perspective/standpoint/commitment) for judgements. Contrary to Scwartz's assertions, I have not the slightest problem in formulating judgements and acting in ways I find consistent with them. I just cannot and do not claim I am doing other than that. Nor will I accept others' claims that they are doing more than that - whether or not they claim their judgements (or critiques) are "immanent" or "grounded intersubjectively" or any of the host of other phrases used to comfort those who make judgements but want them to be "valid" absolutely. Contrary to Schwartz's assertions, I try hard to convince others to see my way because I need their help, cooperation, and comradeship to achieve the goals that make sense to me socially. I understand them to do likewise. Indeed, these postings are part of all that. But there is no need nor, in my view, any warrant to require or claim that my judgements are other than views for which I seek adherents - like others do for theirs. Depending on the social contexts, some views will and some views wont win such adherents. But none of this has anything to do with any claims about "grounds: for critique of judgement beyond the actual social realm of different, contesting, mutually changing perspectives. Contrary to Schwartz, I need not nor do I exclude his absolutist perspective on grounds it is "wrong" (the way he does mine). I see his perspective as different from mine, as having social consequences I do not like, and as worth opposing in discourse as I do. In contrast, he has to see my view as "wrong," in precisely the sense of something beyond "different from Schwartz" - in short as more than relatively wrong, as abvsolutely wrong. My parting shot thus is: have we not had more than enough illustrations, left, right, and center, of awful consequences of such absolutist judgement styles.........to be at least a little suspicious of them and defenses of them, to be just a little open to alternative, different ways of conceptualizing difference? R. Wolff ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005