At 15:03 8/10/97 +1000, Ricardo wrote:
>>If you meant to say outright that all truths are "arbitrary", then
>>Devine's criticism (and now Doug's as well) apply.
____________
No. I don't think so. Let's suppose that the claim to absolute truth is
internally inconsistent. A critic who points this out does not need to rely
on any alternative claim to truth to do so. Coherency or 'making sense'
does not epso facto mean that one is making a claim to Truth.
______
>>
>>Truth-claims are arbitrary only if they are not open to critical
>>(rational) examination by your peers, at which point they may either
>>be rejected or accepted. Now, it is true that this rationalist
>>attitute involves FAITH in reason, which is what led me to say
>>previously that, since the first principles of a
>>philosophy cannot be proven true, they are arbitrary: faith in
>>reason is arbitrary.
___________
Exactly! But this FAITH is worse than faith in God. People who claim the
existence of God don't usually claim it on the basis of 'reason', apart
from Descartes, rather they claim it on the basis of direct experience,
e.g. the great mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal.
_______
>>
>>But then I added that:
>>
>>> >Hegel
>>> >>abandoned this attempt to BEGIN philosophy with a set of "first"
>>> >>principles. First principles will always lie exterior to reason.
>>> >>Reason can only justify itself through its own experience; it has no
>>> >>need of another principle except its own act of reasoning. To seek a
>>> >>firm foundation apart from the act of reasoning is like trying
>>> >>to swim without getting into the water.
>>> >___________
>>> >
>>
>>Ajit responded:
>>
>>> >But do you think Hegel succeeded in his attempt. I think there are lots
>>> >of ideas in Hegel which are simply posited. And then of course the
>>> >logicians think that dialectics is all mumbo zumbo anyway, but I'm not
>>> >saying that.
>>> ________
>>
>>
>>Without getting into a debate about Hegel, he posited the truths of
>>his time: Post-Kantian and Post-revolutionary Europe. He did not
>>concoct these truth (ex nihilo) out of his head...
__________
That's true. But I'm skeptical of a logic which generates results that were
its presupposition. This circular loop leaves me feel a bit cheated. It's
like a magician who shows you that he put the rabbit in the hat and then
after much fanfare pulls it out of the hat. But then I think we should stop
on Hegel, since it's not getting any serious.
__________
>>
>>Ajit continues:
>>
>> Again the question is not that whether the
>>> native Americans' sense of individuality is in conflict with the
>>> predominant cultural norms of "individual rights and cultural
liberties" in
>>> America. Even if it did conflict, the multiculturalist must protect and
>>> respect the predominant American cultural norms. It is a part of the
>>> multicultural fabric. The problem arises when one culture, usually the
>>> dominant culture, argues that it is the only "reasonable" way to live and
>>> the other cultures must 'assimilate', i.e. accept a cultural genocide.
>>>
>>> I do think that the question of justice for all requires to be thought
>>> through seriously though. On what principle a sense of justice could be
>>> built? Cheers, ajit sinha
>>>
>>
>> That's the problem: in the name of multiculturalism you may very
>>well find yourself protecting every crime in the book! By the
>>way, I am not against multiculturalism; my point is that - in this
>>age of "modernity", of which you are a participant - there are no
>>simple solutions, such as those which simply celebrate all cultural
>>practices. ricardo
_________
Which book you are talking about? My problem of justice had very little to
do with the laws of US or Canada etc. My problem is that in every society,
as far as we know, there is exploitation and injustice that goes on. Can we
come up with some sense of justice which would cut across
socio-cultural-historical context that would legitimate struggles against
injustice. I'm thinking about Derrida's idea that the notion of justice
cannot be deconstructed. But why not? I couldn't understand.
Cheers, ajit sinha
