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