hilde45, thanks for your response.
First, let’s be clear, I have no interest in “overturning the relativist position”, but please understand that this does not mean that I find truth in that position. However, I must admit that I find the use of the word “overturn” rather telling and indicative of at least one aspect of our respective stances. My interest is solely in recognizing, and in this particular case, being free to hold and express a position that is not in agreement with the relativist position. Moreover, the way that I interpret Putnam’s comment is that it is in opposition to the relativist position and affirming of my position. He explains what is “wrong” with the relativist position; which is, the absence of standards used to arrive at that position. My position values the use of standards as the means to arriving at a truth; admittedly, my truth. I don’t quite see how that comment supports the relativist position
**** everything we label is labeled with our concepts, our words, and connect to our schemes -- and our purposes. ****
Exactly; and this includes the concept of non reliance on standards. This notion can indeed be extremely purposeful; and not always in a positive way.
First, let’s be clear, I have no interest in “overturning the relativist position”, but please understand that this does not mean that I find truth in that position. However, I must admit that I find the use of the word “overturn” rather telling and indicative of at least one aspect of our respective stances. My interest is solely in recognizing, and in this particular case, being free to hold and express a position that is not in agreement with the relativist position. Moreover, the way that I interpret Putnam’s comment is that it is in opposition to the relativist position and affirming of my position. He explains what is “wrong” with the relativist position; which is, the absence of standards used to arrive at that position. My position values the use of standards as the means to arriving at a truth; admittedly, my truth. I don’t quite see how that comment supports the relativist position
**** everything we label is labeled with our concepts, our words, and connect to our schemes -- and our purposes. ****
Exactly; and this includes the concept of non reliance on standards. This notion can indeed be extremely purposeful; and not always in a positive way.