My point was not concerning patriarchy, I merely used it as an example to demonstrate the point I was making. I was worried about how easily you categorized moral objectivism and relativism into opposite camps. I believe that time, in its immanent dynamization, creates the conditions such that these two opposites are more interrelated than separate. To illustrate I will take the example of the famous art work. You had stated that Picasso’s Cuernica is a great piece of art. This characterization is established consensually and it lives on. You also stated that in the distant future it may be commonplace that this art work is regarded as terrible at best. Now, supposing this is the case, its previous objective status – greatness – is stripped for the place of another – mediocrity. Thus, the openness of the future is what injects relativism into objective characterizations. The process of relativization (i.e. new conversations about old ideas, unique experiences, the openness and contingency of the future) is what enables us to ground objective and consensual standards. If we all experienced the same thing, there would be no “objectivity”, instead, things would just be. There would be no place for objectivity, for the search of meaningful principles and productive standards against the radical chaoticity of pure differences, of relativism as such.
1 comment:
My point was not concerning patriarchy, I merely used it as an example to demonstrate the point I was making. I was worried about how easily you categorized moral objectivism and relativism into opposite camps. I believe that time, in its immanent dynamization, creates the conditions such that these two opposites are more interrelated than separate. To illustrate I will take the example of the famous art work. You had stated that Picasso’s Cuernica is a great piece of art. This characterization is established consensually and it lives on. You also stated that in the distant future it may be commonplace that this art work is regarded as terrible at best. Now, supposing this is the case, its previous objective status – greatness – is stripped for the place of another – mediocrity. Thus, the openness of the future is what injects relativism into objective characterizations. The process of relativization (i.e. new conversations about old ideas, unique experiences, the openness and contingency of the future) is what enables us to ground objective and consensual standards. If we all experienced the same thing, there would be no “objectivity”, instead, things would just be. There would be no place for objectivity, for the search of meaningful principles and productive standards against the radical chaoticity of pure differences, of relativism as such.
Post a Comment