tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post243038645018321342..comments2024-02-24T00:25:39.415-08:00Comments on Examined Worlds: Does Relativism Make Us Dumber and Nastier?Ethanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13490888839784651097noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post-46417033351333846412016-10-23T09:37:36.295-07:002016-10-23T09:37:36.295-07:00Thanks for the clarification.
I'm going to re...Thanks for the clarification.<br /><br />I'm going to respond to some of it, but here's what I'd like you to do: Do NOT respond to it here. Instead, think about it, and at some point in the future, preferably after you've graduated, we can talk about these issues at length.<br /><br />1. I purposively don't use the term "neoliberalism" on this blog because it's one of those fancy academic leftist terms that has not broken into the mainstream. Although it gets at something real, I find the term to be nebulous and somewhat poorly defined. I have written before against selfishness and the idea that economic efficiency is the highest virtue, so to say that I'm in favor of neoliberalism is a bit odd. I have also written numerous posts about the framework in which I think about politics and voting, particularly with regard to lesser evil voting. See, for instance, this one: http://examinedworlds.blogspot.com/2016/07/dreaming-principles-and-cooperation.html You will disagree with a lot of what I say there presumably, but perhaps that will explain how someone less than thrilled about neoliberalism could nonetheless advocate in favor of particular political candidates. The range of possible views is wider than with-me-or-against-me.<br /><br />2. I disagree with your interpretation of Wittgenstein, and I find your application of his ideas to politics to be idiosyncratic. I'm more sympathetic with your view of Foucault, although I disagree with him. Nonetheless, I don't think he says everything is rationalization, or at least he doesn't quite put it that way.<br /><br />3. My distaste for relativism has grown largely from teaching philosophy for the last ten years. The kind of blasé relativism of your average first year college student makes it almost impossible to teach philosophy or engage in inquiry: if the answer is just whatever you or your society think, then there's no point in thinking about what the answer is - you already know it. Even for fancier, Foucault-inspired relativists, I remain puzzled: if everything is a rationalization, isn't the idea that everything is a rationalization itself just a rationalization? Why should I take it seriously? In short: I find relativism to be every bit as dogmatic as any view it is supposed to replace. One need not think humans are perfectly rational, but spending the last twenty years studying philosophy has led me to think we can, with some work, be somewhat rational in the very basic sense of giving and evaluating reasons. Again, you will presumably disagree (by giving reasons!), but that's fine. One more thing: If you go to grad school, you will find that the majority of professional philosophers, especially those outside of continental philosophy, will react to your views much more strongly and dismissively than I have.<br /><br />4. To get a sense of why someone might find the way you interact with people to be somewhat annoying or disrespectful, imagine that someone wrote the following comment in reply to what you just said: "You must think that AIDS is a medical myth and Islamic fundamentalism is acceptable. Why? Because you mentioned Foucault." The fact that these are controversial claims about Foucault makes the analogy all the more apt.Ethanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490888839784651097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post-78735321849470028752016-10-22T17:02:22.215-07:002016-10-22T17:02:22.215-07:00(I removed the prior two versions of the above com...(I removed the prior two versions of the above comment to correct grammar errors)Platocreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00958152582712407012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post-49130891018592049932016-10-22T16:57:46.153-07:002016-10-22T16:57:46.153-07:00Much of what you're writing these days rises t...Much of what you're writing these days rises to the defense of the democratic candidate for POTUS and against the republican candidate for POTUS, at least indirectly. The democratic candidate represents the neoliberal school of thought, hence my remark about neoliberalism.<br /><br />In this post you write, "This is, I suspect, what’s at work in a lot of the bizarre conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton and in Donald Trump’s unhinged insistence that the election will be rigged. Rather than accept evidence contrary to one’s unfavorable opinion of Clinton or the idea that Trump is a winner, elaborate conspiracies are theorized as a way to neutralize any possible counter-evidence. Rather than adjusting one’s beliefs in the face of evidence, one adjusts evidence in the face of one’s belief."<br /><br />It's less interesting to me as to whether or not you're right or wrong in your defense and more interesting to me that you don't see yourself as defending it.<br /><br />One cannot simply suggest that they're being skeptical of something without hinting at their support of something else, because the game of doubting presupposes certainty. Your doubting of relativism finds me wondering what it is that you're propping up in its place, which is why I asked where the higher plane of reason leads.<br /><br />As a Foucauldian, I think there is no such thing as reason, only rationalizations. Everyone has an angle, a power play that they are making. I'm simply trying to ascertain what the angle is here. No one dislikes something so passionately without defending something they love in the process.Platocreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00958152582712407012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post-72474584531421841492016-10-22T15:28:35.994-07:002016-10-22T15:28:35.994-07:00I honestly have no idea how anything I said here c...I honestly have no idea how anything I said here could be reasonably or charitably be construed as an argument in favor of neoliberalism, or really an argument in favor of any -ism at all (unless you're deliberately being uncharitable, which I would like to believe is not the case). I'm merely criticizing the idea that relativism is sophisticated or conducive toward tolerance. I am not offering any alternative theory of truth or value. I'm not sure where the higher plane of reason will lead. That's kind of my point.Ethanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13490888839784651097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2323383105577553414.post-73063319946197031912016-10-22T14:35:10.686-07:002016-10-22T14:35:10.686-07:00Obviously neoliberalism is the truth we should sub...Obviously neoliberalism is the truth we should substitute relativism with. Or what is it you're recommending here? Where does the higher plane of reason lead?Platocreshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00958152582712407012noreply@blogger.com