Print

---

Dear Jean,

I would like to second your post. I was also contemplating to post 
similar concerns and even came on the brink of posting. I might do 
that in a few days.

You are right that some people just cling to the idea of 
epistemological relativism in order to use it for political purposes 
and their own empowerment. They do not base their claims on 
philosophical traditions but rather on political slogans. This 
concerns me a lot, because, as I mentioned, and you mention in your 
post, this is breading ground for populist ideologies like national 
socialism and bolshevism. I already mentioned the dangers and the 
consequences of such subtle manipulations of the masses in the last  century.

I also agree with you that people misread European philosophers and 
pick up words from their writing so that they can substantiative 
their own agendas. In most cases they simplify complex ideas, and 
very often they pervert the intent of philosophers. It is sad.

The controversy between reality and fiction should not be discussed 
within the framework of a disciplinary discourse. It should be 
discuss in the realm of competing philosophical traditions: 
materialism and idealism. We can not take it that easy for granted 
that the world is a fiction. We know that this debate has a 3,000 
year history and the discussion hasn't started on the PHD-DESIGN 
list. I am sad that when people start discussions on major 
philosophical issues, they follow their own logic rather than the a 
century old legacy of philosophy. Each one of us knows that when 
starting a research project, a person have to make literature review 
in order to embed the study and to make the  best possible use of 
accumulated knowledge. (I understand the situation is qualitative 
research is different.) Starting a discussion on the fictionality of 
the world and anchoring it in the linguistic phenomena is simply not 
serious, even from deconstructivist or hermeneutical point of view.

Kind regards,

Lubomir


At 08:11 AM 1/24/2008, Jean Schneider wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>Two things that I find interesting :
>- every now and then, the issue of gender comes up on the list. I had
>started a long reply a few months ago, didn't post it, do that's how
>I remember;
>
>- and very soon, the issue of writing, language and truth come up,
>with post-modern vs. ? arguments
>- and then, someone brings in Foucault or Derrida, and it goes on for
>a while.
>
>I am (very slightly) at odds with the way the discussion regresses
>rather than progresses. I think that (american) post-modernism makes
>an interesting misuses of its French sources. Or, more strictly
>speaking, it has been reduced to a "general relativism", which would
>take its root in the mismatch of language(s) and reality (to make it
>simple... the issue has always been a central concern of all
>philosophies).
>I do not see that Foucault (I think I know his work rather well in
>their original language) or Derrida (I red him less) implied (or even
>supported) the idea that there is no truth. What they have analysed
>and what they propose is to track the connection between language and
>power, and the construction of "truths" not in an ontological sense,
>but as something that justifies a structure (of interpretation= a
>frame; of power= a society...).
>And this was also one of the key issues of rethorics since... since
>its inception : how can you (use language to) convince people of
>something that can be experienced in a different way.
>
>The general relativism that come out in the discussion makes me think
>that there is little interest in changing things, and possibly, that
>it even prevents change. My worry would even be that the "general
>relativism" rather than being a radical challenge (in the
>"revolutionary" connotation) could well end up in the most
>conservative and fascist inertia (in the sense that "power" remains 
>- not becomes, remains- the backbone of the social structure).
>
>And this is even a stronger paradox for design(ers) ?
>When Fiona describes the fact that there are more female in the
>textile dept of her university, and more male in the games dept., as
>well as the perception she gets, what counts to me is not really the
>exact reasons why... there are many that simply fall under common
>sense. To me, the essential question is : 1/ is this desirable, from
>my/faculty/society perspective(s) ? 2/ If not, how do I/the faculty/ 
>the society change this. We can also have a discussion about why it
>is desirable or not to have more male in textile and vice-versa, or
>whether the females that are in games are feminine or not, or whether
>the question(s) simply make sense. But, at the end of the day, true
>or false, right or wrong, real or fiction, each of us has some power
>to change or maintain the existing situation ;-)
>
>My 2 (euro)cts,
>
>Jean
>