I said I wasn't going to post...
Aug. 18th, 2004 07:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
But I need somebody to smack me into sense, and my sister isn't picking up the phone.
I'm almost done with my essay. I'm doing it on cultural relativism. He's already pre-written our outlines, so it's simple. At one point, we're supposed to explain "how a cultural relativist, like yourself, would defend cultural relativism against Rachels' argument (that the cultural differences argument is invalid because (example) it'd be silly to say there is no objective truth about the shape of the world just because two cultures say the earth is two different shapes). I assume he expects us to say that there's no reason to believe that moral truths are the same as truths about, say, the shape of the world... but he didn't realize that "myself" is crazy. I want to say that there's no reason to believe that all things MUST have objective truths! After all, if light can be both a particle and a wave depending on the observer, and Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive until you look in the box, why can't something be both right and wrong depending on the culture?
I'm not sure this is a good argument.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a stupid argument.
In fact, I'm positive that this will fail me.
But I want to say it anyway!
It's so cool!
And neat!
And it invokes physics!
Somebody hit me. Hard. Make me stop being crazy.
I'm almost done with my essay. I'm doing it on cultural relativism. He's already pre-written our outlines, so it's simple. At one point, we're supposed to explain "how a cultural relativist, like yourself, would defend cultural relativism against Rachels' argument (that the cultural differences argument is invalid because (example) it'd be silly to say there is no objective truth about the shape of the world just because two cultures say the earth is two different shapes). I assume he expects us to say that there's no reason to believe that moral truths are the same as truths about, say, the shape of the world... but he didn't realize that "myself" is crazy. I want to say that there's no reason to believe that all things MUST have objective truths! After all, if light can be both a particle and a wave depending on the observer, and Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive until you look in the box, why can't something be both right and wrong depending on the culture?
I'm not sure this is a good argument.
In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a stupid argument.
In fact, I'm positive that this will fail me.
But I want to say it anyway!
It's so cool!
And neat!
And it invokes physics!
Somebody hit me. Hard. Make me stop being crazy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
*thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:01 pm (UTC)Anyway, I like your essay idea. Are you going to mention the fact that you can't even be sure whether the round world OR the moral question even exists outside of your own head?
Re: *thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:07 pm (UTC)Re: *thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:21 pm (UTC);-)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:20 pm (UTC)But if they guy already pre-wrote your outlines he's clearly trying to guide you in a single direction and he might not be thrilled about deviation from it. I'd reccomend against it if you're at all worried about your grade.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:40 pm (UTC)"I want to say that there's no reason to believe that all things MUST have objective truths! After all, if light can be both a particle and a wave depending on the observer, and Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive until you look in the box, why can't something be both right and wrong depending on the culture?"
Testify, Sistah! I think that's a fine argument, so instead of whacking you upside the head, I'm going to encourage you: the idea that there is such a thing as "objective truth" is itself a cultural belief. The fact that it's a belief of THIS culture (Western civilization) doesn't change that.
"it'd be silly to say there is no objective truth about the shape of the world just because two cultures say the earth is two different shapes."
... it'd be silly to say it in THIS culture only because it contradicts a cultural belief so deep-rooted that people would think one who said it was either joking or crazy. Galileo was a fool to say that the Earth moves around the Sun, because it contradicted a fundamental belief of his culture, and if he hadn't wised up and recanted, he'd have been tortured to death for saying it. That's what "silly" means: not in accordance with consensus reality.
Well, what IS consensus reality? It's what other people say it is, that's all. Now, I don't deny that the Earth is round, or that the scientific method is a useful way of figuring things out, because I'm a product of this culture too, but I see no reason why someone from a different culture where these aren't fundamental beliefs should accept my saying so.
Rachel doesn't KNOW that the Earth is round. She's been told that, often enough and convincingly enough that she believes it, but she hasn't actually gone up in an orbital spacecraft and verified it for herself. Do you know about The Flat Earth Society (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Flat+Earth+Society&btnG=Google+Search)? They do NOT believe the Earth is round, and they've got no end of arguments to support their views. The fact that a lot of people (including me) don't think their arguments are valid doesn't prove that they're not valid.
It comes down to a matter of opinion. The whole idea of consensus reality is that whichever opinion has more people supporting it is the truth. Well, I for one don't accept the idea that Truth is whatever the majority believes it is. However, I have sense enough to not say so to people who are in a position to make trouble for me for saying it.
Apparently you do too, which is why you're asking people to hit you over the head - because the real purpose of your essay is to induce your teacher to give you a good grade. It sounds like he's already demonstrated the fact that he isn't prepared to deal with challenges to his pre-conceived notions, so you're probably correct that doing so would lead to failure.
However, this does not mean it's a stupid argument! All it means is that you've got a stupid teacher, and will have to take that into account when you write your essay, if you want to get a good grade on it.
Sucks, doesn't it? You've got to choose between intellectual honesty and your own advantage. So... now you know how Galileo felt.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:48 pm (UTC)But thanks! *hums to herself*
I'll post my essay when I'm done. I'm rather proud of it, actually. All I need is a few quotes, and some more information on the observer effect (anybody got a copy of elegant universe for me?)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-19 12:59 am (UTC)*coughs*
*thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:01 pm (UTC)Anyway, I like your essay idea. Are you going to mention the fact that you can't even be sure whether the round world OR the moral question even exists outside of your own head?
Re: *thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:07 pm (UTC)Re: *thwaps conuly over the head with a trout*
Date: 2004-08-18 05:21 pm (UTC);-)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:20 pm (UTC)But if they guy already pre-wrote your outlines he's clearly trying to guide you in a single direction and he might not be thrilled about deviation from it. I'd reccomend against it if you're at all worried about your grade.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:40 pm (UTC)"I want to say that there's no reason to believe that all things MUST have objective truths! After all, if light can be both a particle and a wave depending on the observer, and Schrodinger's cat can be both dead and alive until you look in the box, why can't something be both right and wrong depending on the culture?"
Testify, Sistah! I think that's a fine argument, so instead of whacking you upside the head, I'm going to encourage you: the idea that there is such a thing as "objective truth" is itself a cultural belief. The fact that it's a belief of THIS culture (Western civilization) doesn't change that.
"it'd be silly to say there is no objective truth about the shape of the world just because two cultures say the earth is two different shapes."
... it'd be silly to say it in THIS culture only because it contradicts a cultural belief so deep-rooted that people would think one who said it was either joking or crazy. Galileo was a fool to say that the Earth moves around the Sun, because it contradicted a fundamental belief of his culture, and if he hadn't wised up and recanted, he'd have been tortured to death for saying it. That's what "silly" means: not in accordance with consensus reality.
Well, what IS consensus reality? It's what other people say it is, that's all. Now, I don't deny that the Earth is round, or that the scientific method is a useful way of figuring things out, because I'm a product of this culture too, but I see no reason why someone from a different culture where these aren't fundamental beliefs should accept my saying so.
Rachel doesn't KNOW that the Earth is round. She's been told that, often enough and convincingly enough that she believes it, but she hasn't actually gone up in an orbital spacecraft and verified it for herself. Do you know about The Flat Earth Society (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Flat+Earth+Society&btnG=Google+Search)? They do NOT believe the Earth is round, and they've got no end of arguments to support their views. The fact that a lot of people (including me) don't think their arguments are valid doesn't prove that they're not valid.
It comes down to a matter of opinion. The whole idea of consensus reality is that whichever opinion has more people supporting it is the truth. Well, I for one don't accept the idea that Truth is whatever the majority believes it is. However, I have sense enough to not say so to people who are in a position to make trouble for me for saying it.
Apparently you do too, which is why you're asking people to hit you over the head - because the real purpose of your essay is to induce your teacher to give you a good grade. It sounds like he's already demonstrated the fact that he isn't prepared to deal with challenges to his pre-conceived notions, so you're probably correct that doing so would lead to failure.
However, this does not mean it's a stupid argument! All it means is that you've got a stupid teacher, and will have to take that into account when you write your essay, if you want to get a good grade on it.
Sucks, doesn't it? You've got to choose between intellectual honesty and your own advantage. So... now you know how Galileo felt.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:48 pm (UTC)But thanks! *hums to herself*
I'll post my essay when I'm done. I'm rather proud of it, actually. All I need is a few quotes, and some more information on the observer effect (anybody got a copy of elegant universe for me?)
no subject
Date: 2004-08-18 06:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-19 12:59 am (UTC)*coughs*