Tumgik
#relativism
Text
A cultural ideology that is based on relativism must inevitably lead to mediocrity. Where there is no criticism, there is increasingly no excellence. For to "excel" is by definition to be distinguished in a positive way from other things. It is a declaration that one thing is preferable to another.
92 notes · View notes
areadersquoteslibrary · 9 months
Text
'"Good and evil are the prejudices of God" — said the snake.'
- Friedrich Nietzsche,
'The Gay Science'
43 notes · View notes
Photo
Tumblr media
His [Foucault's] vision of European culture as the institutionalised form of oppressive power is taught everywhere as gospel, to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it. Only in France is he widely regarded as a fraud.
- Roger Scruton on Michel Foucault
During student protests in Paris in 1968, Roger Scruton, a francophile, watched students overturn cars to erect barricades and tear up cobblestones to throw at police. It was at that moment he realised he was a conservative.
For Scruton, he didn’t think much of Jean Paul Satre, the father of existentialism, who cobbled together the essence of his philosophy from Alexandre Kojève's reading of Hegel in his famous seminar at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in the 1930s. His listeners included Bataille, Aron, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan and Simone de Beauvoir. Each of them drew something different from him. For Sartre, the idea of the self-created individual with radical freedom. Expressed very early on in La nausée, this freedom is a source of anguish for a consciousness which not only considers that the surrounding world has no meaning other than that which it can possibly confer on it, but which experiences itself as a kind of nothingness.
How, starting from such a philosophy, does Sartre arrive at the idea of commitment to revolution and socialism? It is a mystery. Scruton wrote, "According to the metaphysics enunciated in Being and Nothingness, the correct answer to the question "To what shall I commit myself?" should be: What does it matter, as long as you can want it as a law for yourself." "But this is not the answer offered by Sartre, whose commitment is to an ideal that is at odds with his own philosophy.”
With his theory of episteme, Foucault gives us a new version of the Marxist concept of ideology.
Despite what some might think, Scruton wasn’t entirely dismissive of Foucault whose thought was more subtle and interesting than Sartre’s. Scruton confesses a certain tenderness for Michel Foucault's style, for his flamboyant imagination. But Scruton does not see his archaeology of knowledge as a great innovation. According to a habit shared by many French left-wing intellectuals, like Sartre himself, Foucault intended to tear away the veils behind which the relations of domination are hidden, to unmask the deceptions of others. With Sartre, it was in the name of a vague nostalgia for personal authenticity. Foucault, on the other hand, looked for the secret structures of power behind all institutions - and even at work in language.
But the historical horizon on which Foucault projected this quest, which postulated a rupture between the "classical age" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the bourgeois world that would follow the French Revolution, showed that, despite his claims, Foucault had remained a prisoner of Marxism. Moreover, as Scruton would write, “his theory of episteme is a rehash of the Marxist theory of ideology. Moreover, he considers power only from the perspective of domination. “
But the main criticism that Scruton finds fault with Foucault is the one found in the post-enlightenment thinkers: relativism. If each era generates the discursive formations that correspond to its system of power, including the sciences, then truth does not exist. Everything is discourse...
Photo: Jean-Paul Satre and Michel Foucault take a stand during the Paris Student Riots, May 1968.
89 notes · View notes
Tumblr media
Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as "wrong" in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags?
And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?
Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?
I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned.
But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?
Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her.
What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?"
-- Sam Harris, "Science Can Answer Moral Questions"
51 notes · View notes
pratchettquotes · 2 years
Text
"And what you've got there, my friend, is patriotism. My country, right or wrong."
"You should love your country," said Shufti.
"Okay, what part?" the voice of Tonker demanded, from the far corner of the tent. "The morning sunlight on the mountains? The horrible food? The damn mad Abominations? All of my country except whatever bit Strappi is standing on?"
"But we are at war!"
"Yes, that's where they've got you," said Polly.
"Well, I'm not buying into it. It's all trickery. They keep you down and when they piss off some other country, you have to fight for them! It's only your country when they want you to get killed!" said Tonker.
Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
144 notes · View notes
aronarchy · 3 months
Text
5 notes · View notes
Text
“When relativism is used in extreme levels it turns into nihilism”
Author: Me
3 notes · View notes
7thedisasterdyke · 2 years
Text
I’d like to note something, in light of the recent fandom discourse:
Multiple schools of thought exist. Each one has a background.
USAmericans have more “no censorship at all because it’s a slippery slope” because that’s what history tells us.
Other countries have less of a problem with censorship because their history is different regarding it.
We all see discourse through the lens of our current and historical struggles.
I will be reblogging posts about stuff with conflicting viewpoints. This is not because my views disagree or agree with these other ones, but because it’s good to know how people in other places feel about it.
The word “queer”, for instance:
—Is the predominant academic term for people like me
—Is still being used as a slur in many places
—Is being reclaimed from being a slur in even more places
Does this stop me from calling myself queer? No. It’s what I am. I have a hard time describing myself to large sets of people, so I use the word that makes it easier.
Does this mean that you have to call yourself queer? Also no. Use whatever word suits you best.
Do you want to know what American Christians call this?
Moral Relativism, or just Relativism in general.
Their logic is such that they cannot possibly accept that two different things can coexist as truth at the same time in the same way.
A lot of y’all on this hellsite seem to still believe that relativism is wrong. It’s not. It’s time y’all learned that.
Go read old (INCLUSIVE) queer literature (a good starting point is Transgender Warriors, but don’t end there), learn that the ones who paved the way for us knew that the oppressors had tactics they use to separate us, and they knew how to avoid them, and teach others how to avoid them.
We can do the same.
Queer liberation, not assimilation.
Rant over.
86 notes · View notes
wisdomfish · 2 months
Quote
In a world truly without objective values, a person might choose to live like Gandhi rather than like Saddam Hussein, but. . .it would be just as acceptable to model one’s life after Hussein.
Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. p. 235
3 notes · View notes
words-of-wonderland · 3 months
Text
What money can't buy: the Moral Limits of Markets (Micheal J. Sandel)
Sandel's lectures raise moral objections to market expansion, especially the commodification of certain "goods": surrogacy, military enlistment, and the wealth gap in democratic nations. Sandel takes a two-pronged attack on undesirable commodification: 1) coercion and 2) corruption. I found the appeal to corruption to be the more interesting but also finicky. (p 104) Sandel references utilitarian decision-making as a form of market-orientated thinking that degrades the goods. He specifically notes how each individual consequential consideration is flattened into pieces of utility. He calls this process, and the conversion into monetary terms a "translation" and posits that value can be lost in the process (p 105). I am partial to the argument, agreeing strongly with Sandel that commodification of certain goods degrades their value in the appraisal and is morally inappropriate, but I think that the nuance of each item, event, and being that we want to preserve by not commodifying will become an issue in defending the claim not to flatten their nuance. This is because as Sandel points out on page 106, the distinction between coercion and corruption is that coercion always appeals to consent while corruption appeals to multiple ideals from overlapping, conflicting, and simply differing ideologies -- ie the appeal against the wealth gap draws upon republican civic virtues that apply in self-government, surrogacy on the elusive definitions of parenthood that can differ between cultures, etc). How do we argue for the preservation of value nuance from multiple ideologies without flattening the nuances or committing to relativism in the process?
6 notes · View notes
omegaphilosophia · 2 months
Text
Aspects of the Philosophy of Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a philosophical and cultural movement that emerged in the mid-20th century, characterized by skepticism towards grand narratives, a rejection of absolute truths, and an emphasis on the subjective nature of reality. It challenges traditional notions of truth, reason, and authority, advocating for diversity, inclusivity, and the recognition of multiple perspectives. Postmodernism has had a significant influence on various fields, including literature, art, architecture, sociology, and philosophy, shaping debates on identity, power, and representation.
Some theories in the philosophy of postmodernism include:
Deconstruction: Developed by Jacques Derrida, deconstruction seeks to uncover the inherent contradictions and binary oppositions within texts and discourses, challenging the notion of stable meanings and revealing the fluidity of language.
Cultural Critique: Postmodernism often involves a critical examination of dominant cultural norms and practices, questioning established hierarchies, power structures, and modes of representation.
Relativism: Postmodernism often embraces relativistic perspectives, asserting that truth and meaning are not fixed but are instead contingent upon cultural, historical, and individual contexts.
Social Constructivism: Postmodernism emphasizes the role of social constructs in shaping our understanding of reality, arguing that knowledge and truth are socially constructed rather than objectively given.
Pluralism: Postmodernism advocates for the recognition and celebration of diversity, encouraging openness to multiple perspectives, identities, and experiences.
Skepticism: Postmodernism is characterized by a skeptical attitude towards meta-narratives or grand narratives that claim to provide universal truths or explanations of history and society.
Irony and Playfulness: Postmodernism often employs irony, parody, pastiche, and other playful techniques to subvert traditional forms of representation and challenge established norms.
Hybridity and Fragmentation: Postmodernism acknowledges the fragmentation and hybridity of contemporary culture, embracing the mixing of diverse cultural influences, styles, and forms.
Interdisciplinarity: Postmodernism encourages interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge production, drawing on insights from various fields such as literature, art, philosophy, sociology, and cultural studies.
Postcolonialism: Postmodernism intersects with postcolonial theory, which examines the legacies of colonialism and imperialism, critiquing Eurocentric perspectives and advocating for decolonization and cultural diversity.
2 notes · View notes
itsgerges · 3 months
Text
Tumblr media
2 notes · View notes
stjohncapistrano67 · 4 months
Text
I'm currently reading "The city of God, the City of Man" by St. Augustine. Anybody who bothers to read with unbiased mind St. Paul's epistles or the Catholic epistles and this book will realize that the "powers that be" have already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in paganizing society and culture since the protestant revolt. The key component of Heresy of protestantism is worship of self. When you reject the authority of the pre Vatican II council Church, interpret the bible for your self and claim that your doing everything under the inspiration of the "Holy Spirit" and "your good enough to get to Heaven AS IS", you have a relativistic, narcissistic, and Godless society and culture. In other words, practical atheism.
2 notes · View notes
Text
By: Richard Dawkins
Published: Jun 26, 2023
I’m in New Zealand, climax to my antipodean speaking tour, where I walked headlong into a raging controversy. Jacinda Ardern’s government implemented a ludicrous policy, spawned by Chris Hipkins’s Ministry of Education before he became prime minister. Science classes are to be taught that Māori ‘Ways of Knowing’ (Mātauranga Māori) have equal standing with ‘western’ science. Not surprisingly, this adolescent virtue-signalling horrified New Zealand’s grown-up scientists and scholars. Seven of them wrote to the Listener magazine. Three who were fellows of the NZ Royal Society were threatened with an inquisitorial investigation. Two of these, including the distinguished medical scientist Garth Cooper, himself of Māori descent, resigned (the third unfortunately died). I was delighted to meet Professor Cooper for lunch, with others of the seven. His resignation letter cited the society’s failure to support science against its denigration as ‘a western European invention’. He was affronted, too, by a complaint (not endorsed by the NZRS) that ‘to insist Māori children learn to read is an act of colonisation’. Is there an implication here – condescending, if not downright racist – that ‘indigenous’ children need separate, special treatment?
Perhaps the most disagreeable aspect of this sorry affair is the climate of fear. We who don’t have a career to lose should speak out in defense of those who do. The magnificent seven are branded heretics by a nastily zealous new religion, a witch-hunt that recalls the false accusations against J.K. Rowling and Kathleen Stock. Professor Kendall Clements was removed from teaching evolution at the University of Auckland, after the School of Biological Sciences Putaiao Committee submitted the following recommendation: ‘We do not feel that either Kendall or Garth should be put in front of students as teachers. This is not safe for students…’ Not safe? Who are these cringing little wimps whose ‘safety’ requires protection against free speech? What on earth do they think a university is for?
To grasp government intentions requires a little work, because every third word of the relevant documents is in Māori. Since only 2 per cent of New Zealanders (and only 5 per cent of Māoris) speak that language, this again looks like self-righteous virtue-signalling, bending a knee to that modish version of Original Sin which is white guilt. Mātauranga Māori includes valuable tips on edible fungi, star navigation and species conservation (pity the moas were all eaten). Unfortunately it is deeply invested in vitalism. New Zealand children will be taught the true wonder of DNA, while being simultaneously confused by the doctrine that all life throbs with a vital force conferred by the Earth Mother and the Sky Father. Origin myths are haunting and poetic, but they belong elsewhere in the curriculum. The very phrase ‘western’ science buys into the ‘relativist’ notion that evolution and big bang cosmology are just the origin myth of white western men, a narrative whose hegemony over ‘indigenous’ alternatives stems from nothing better than political power. This is pernicious nonsense. Science belongs to all humanity. It is humanity’s proud best shot at discovering the truth about the real world.
My speeches in Auckland and Wellington were warmly applauded, though one woman yelled a protest. She was politely invited to participate, but she chose to walk out instead. I truthfully said that, when asked my favourite country, I invariably choose New Zealand. Citing the legacy of Ernest Rutherford, the greatest experimental physicist since Faraday, I begged my audiences to reach out to their MPs in support of New Zealand science. The true reason science is more than an origin myth is that it stands on evidence: massively documented evidence, double blind trials, peer review, quantitative predictions precisely verified in labs around the world. Science reads the billion-word DNA book of life itself. Science eradicates smallpox and polio. Science navigates to Pluto or a tiny comet. Science almost certainly saved your life. Science works.
Postscript on the flight out: Air New Zealand think it is a cute idea to invoke Māori gods in their safety briefing. Imagine if British Airways announced that their planes are kept aloft by the Holy Ghost in equal partnership with Bernoulli’s Principle and Newton’s First Law. Science explains. It lightens our darkness. Science is the poetry of reality. It belongs to all humanity. Kia Ora!
Richard Dawkins
17 notes · View notes
renegade-hierophant · 11 months
Text
One man’s lunatic is another man’s genius.
RH
5 notes · View notes
third-nature · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
[X]
13 notes · View notes