tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post8262401158051925556..comments2023-10-30T11:57:26.749+01:00Comments on SCREENVILLE: Cultural RelativismUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-41126180841786503922008-04-15T23:43:00.001+02:002008-04-15T23:43:00.001+02:00Though "cultural relativism" isn't as mind bogglin...Though "cultural relativism" isn't as mind boggling as "moral certainty". So when I brought up the citation I really meant to refer to the field of art criticism, which is much more trivial. And there, relativizing the evaluations of each movie vis-a-vis other referential masterpieces is a crucial in critical judgments.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-78041264525678937262008-04-15T23:43:00.000+02:002008-04-15T23:43:00.000+02:00Well, I do believe in certain common universal bas...Well, I do believe in certain common universal basic values within Mankind (it's what makes us equal beings, we are made from the same mould, both biologically and intellectually), the ones that allow us to contemplate morality or philosophy.<BR/>Courage to confront death (regardless for the evilness of the initial motivation) is one of these objective truth that is not the monopoly of such or HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-51313697844189371232008-04-15T22:21:00.000+02:002008-04-15T22:21:00.000+02:00Harry - I agree with your point, but I also don't ...Harry - <BR/>I agree with your point, but I also don't know on what basis mankind can claim access to objective truth beyond divine inspiration (which is hard to verify). <BR/><BR/>One could make a claim for a Chomskyan universal moral grammar, but like Chomsky's linguistic framework it isn't falsifiable. In my mind these epistemological concerns nullify any pretensions to 'certainty' we can makeDavid McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-65371515228496197932008-04-15T22:04:00.000+02:002008-04-15T22:04:00.000+02:00I don't know about that, but when he opposes Sonta...I don't know about that, but when he opposes Sontag's article, he's being patriotic instead of considering the larger picture Sontag's touches on about universal "courage" beyond political favoritism.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-66231758125103525902008-04-15T21:07:00.000+02:002008-04-15T21:07:00.000+02:00That's precisely the point: 'objective' judgment a...That's precisely the point: 'objective' judgment always reverts to opinionated partisanship, because opinion is the only basis for 'objectivity' in the first place.David McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-33449679702128382392008-04-15T20:55:00.000+02:002008-04-15T20:55:00.000+02:00Yeah exactly. He's giving a lecture on objective "...Yeah exactly. He's giving a lecture on objective "critical judgement" but he's really just being an opinionated partisan with the examples he takes.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16398571.post-27759843520061293842008-04-15T19:57:00.000+02:002008-04-15T19:57:00.000+02:00The way Jones uses Sontag's response to September ...The way Jones uses Sontag's response to September 11 is disingenuous and misleading. <BR/><BR/>Jones' first sentence is great: "The language of relativism projects power by raising doubt or casting uncertainty where none existed before." The rest of his piece was wrong, wrong, wrong, starting with his vilification of Susan Sontag's piece on September 11. He makes his case without bothering to David McDougallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11020826602374694194noreply@blogger.com