HI Richard:
PLATT: (previously)
Yes. Dogma can be dangerous. On the other hand, certain “absolute”
principles like freedom of political expression are necessary in a
democratic society.
RICHARD:
Could you clarify 'absolute' in that context? It's clearly not the same
'absolute' as 'I am absolutely certain that it is snowing in connecticut at
present.' Freedom of political expression has hardly always been
practiced in democratic societies.
As I’ve said, we live in a sea of absolutes. There are absolutes of
environment like “It’s raining.” There are absolutes of law like “I’m
married.” There are absolutes in math like 2+2=4. There are absolute
scientific principles like “Entropy.” There are absolute democratic
principles like “Equality.” There are absolutes of history like “My great,
great grandfather was a slave.” There are absolutes in logic like A is A.
It is the latter that I’ve emphasized since this site is about philosophy.
PLATT:
But the main point is that for a society to function at all, the absolute
truth of a reality that exists independently of one’s individual wishes
must be acknowledged. Otherwise, my beliefs are as good as yours,
anything goes, and your elimination for thinking otherwise becomes a
matter of no never mind for me. Which paves the way for rule by force
and open sesame to Hitler/Stalin/Castro types.
RICHARD:
I simply cannot agree that that has anything to do with the figures you
allude to have anything to do with this. The characteristic of those types
is that their beliefs were better than anyone else's and that they had
access to absolute truths denied to others.
Precisely my point. If I believe in an absolute truth and you don’t, then
you have no reason to oppose and try to defeat me if I gain the power to
impose my truth on you.
PLATT:
The reason postmodernism is more of threat than Ayn Rand is that the
former has permeated the humanities in most every U.S. college.
Rand is personna non grata in academe; you won’t find a course
devoted to her philosophy in any major liberal arts college. But cultural
studies, feminist studies, gay studies, African studies—all of which
cater to the postmodernist dogma of truth dependent on power—are
everywhere. As such I consider it a far greater danger.
RICHARD:
I would agree that the idea that truth is determined by power is
potentially a fascist one.
Also a communist one.
RICHARD:
But one does not need philosophy to assert that this has happened.
History alone teaches us that the Nazis wielded power and used what
they appropriated as truth as a means to power.
Are you absolutely certain that what you say the Nazis did is historically
true? (-:
RICHARD:
Part of this was the oppression of some of the groups you adumbrate
above.
Please define ‘adumbrate’ for me. My dictionary says it means
“overshadow” which makes no sense in the above sentence.
RICHARD:
Conversely, the principal idea about the studies you describe is that in
a democratic society there can be contesting ideologies and that the
beliefs of each individual are equally valid. I concur that this clearly
lacks any framework for determining the value of each respective
ideology, but my impression has always been that this resulted in a
reluctance to engage with those questions, leading to a suspension of
judgement, rather than a desire to impose beliefs on one another. Just
because that is philosophically possible, dos not make it so.
Reluctance to engage in questions of ideology paves the way for those
with fanatic ideologies to take over. Make no mistake about it: believing
that “the beliefs of each individual are equally valid” is a fanatic
ideology, now being taught on campuses across the country. This
ideology leaves a power vacuum which will be filled by--you guessed
it—intellectuals, as Pirsig eloquently explains:
PIRSIG:
“When people asked, ‘If no culture, including a Victorian culture, can
say what is right and what is wrong, then how can we ever know what
is right and what is wrong?’ the answer was, 'That's easy. Intellectuals
will tell you. Intellectuals, unlike members of studiable cultures, know
what they're talking and writing about, because what they say isn't
culturally relative. What they say is absolute. This is because
intellectuals follow science, which is objective. An objective observer
does not have relative opinions because he is nowhere within the
world he observes. Good old Dusenberry--This was the same
hogwash he denounced in the 1950s in Montana.”(LILA, Chap. 22)
PLATT:
Perhaps we can agree that absolutes are a double edged-sword and
that today we find ourselves trapped between fundamentalists who
believe they have “the truth” and postmodernists who refuse to pin it
down.
RICHARD:
That might be reasonable, yes, but I would still take the view that the
latter is a speculative problem, whereas the former has been endemic
throughout history. If you really are asking me to believe that liberal arts
students are a danger to the fabric of society, you really must expect
me to be sceptical - and if you wish to assert this on the basis of some
form of authoritarianism against the perceived 'immorality' of the
behaviour of others, than I am not sure we can agree at all.
I don’t understand what you mean beginning with “and if you wish . . .”
As for those liberal arts students, do you think they will be willing to risk
their lives to defend democracy? If democracy as an ideology is no
better or no worse than, say, the ideology of a Iraqi dictator (in other
words, we suspend judgment as postmodernists say we should) then
why fight against the dictator when he asks us to surrender to his rule?
If the answer is, “Kill or be killed’ or “Give me liberty or give me death”
we’re back to those pesky absolutes again.
PLATT:
So long as philosophy remains rational, the statement “there are no
absolutes” is untenable. As soon as you make that assertion you erect
a self-contradiction from which there’s no escape without invoking
mysticism. Even the scientist who exclaims “It’s true that truth is
provisional” finds himself in a logical black hole.
RICHARD:
How do you view Elephant's mediating idea that truth can be sub-
divided into relative and absolute categories?
Sorry, I must have missed that. Can you or Elephant elucidate?
PLATT:
As for divorcing philosophy from politics, it’s impossible. Politics is
about competing philosophies, except it’s called competing
ideologies. At the root of ideology a metaphysics lurks.
RICHARD:
I would agree with (and simply wanted to clarify whether you would
agree with Scruton and his attack on allowing marx and Foucault to be
taught alongside Hegel and Kant) that, although I am still unpersuaded
as to how helpful it is in that context.
Again, it’s the postmodernist ideology that all philosophers (including
the babblings of the bum on the street) are equally worthy. Which
means they are all equally worthless, except of course for the
postmodernist who believes (though he won’t admit it) that
postmodernism is really better than the rest.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:04 BST