On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>The
doctrine that there is no absolute truth is usually called
"relativism".
Bloom estimated that over 90% of incoming freshman at
America's best colleges subscribed to this doctrine. So it's an
important issue to consider at Wikipedia.
Really? Did he give figures on how many had
thought better of it by
the end of the 'best colleges'? Does this tell one
much about anything,
except that teenagers might still have a little to learn? (Design of
questionnaire to test this: 'Is relativism correct? Answer (a) Yes (b)
No (c) Whatever.)
LOL. His "Closing of the American Mind" didn't provide statistics.
I am reminded of Sidney Hook's review of Bloom's book -- enough to spend
half an hour thumbing thru my run of issues of _American Scholar_ to find
it (Winter, 1989, pp. 123-35). While the point I thought me made wasn't
there, still I found a passage that I believe illustrates the gap in
views between Sascha & Ed:
"It may hard to believe, but Bloom's whole discussion of the theme [moral
or cultural relativism] is vitiated by a fundamental blunder. He confuses
subjectivism with moral relativity. He seems unaware of the difference
between saying (1) all truth is relative, meaning nothing is true or
false, good or bad, but that our saying so or feeling so makes it so,
and saying (2) all truth is relational, depending on a complex of things
that determine its validity or objectivity."
Hook then proceeds to explain this difference, noting that Abraham Lincoln,
whom Bloom held as an example of a truly moral statesman was actually
pragmatic in his application of morality (read the "Emancipation
Proclamation" with attention to the locales it is intended to apply);
and persuasively defends Oliver Wendell Holmes from Bloom's charge
of contributing to this concept of "moral relativism".
Re-reading Hook's review for the first time in about 10 years, I find
much that is useful in considering the theme of NPOV.
I suspect Sascha's point of view is closer to Hook's #2.
It was almost entirely a plea that relativism should not take over the
academy, lest openness be used as a dodge to fetter us all. Then the
poor bloke died. :-(
Anyway, the PC article could use a little work. It needs a balance
between liberal and conservative views of PC-ness. Liberals mostly deny
that PC even exists, so it might be tricky. I guess the best strategy is
to quote conservatives a lot, then wait for other contributors to
provide the liberal rebuttal. But I don't relish wading into that swamp.
At the risk of stirring the pot, I find the whole argument about PC-speak
is nothing more than a rehash of Orwell's essay "Politics and the English
Language" -- only the conservative POV is to claim that they don't
engage in the same manipulation of language that the other side does.
(One example would be how Ann Coultier uses titles like "Treason" for
her books about her accusations of left-of-center politicians; there's
no better way to win an argument than to distract your opponent with
defending her/his reputation.)
Geoff