I've been thinking all weekend about writing something intelligent for tonight's blog on the parts of the Sophistic Tradition that we want to examine further. And while I have been applying Brian's WWGD (What Would Gorgias Do) strategy to as many real life problems as possible, I'm finding him to be of little use in the case of deciding what to have for dinner or how to tackle this pesky RSA proposal. No matter what I apply WWGD to, I find myself asking something like, "Who said that a can of sweet corn is an unacceptable dinner?" I know you're all thinking, "Duh Rachel, dieticians" but really, the point is, when things are foundational rather than relativistic, how do we, as unique individuals go about deciding what is foundational? And the even bigger question is, if things are relativistic rather than foundational, who is responsible? Where is the power? The authority? Relativism and foundationalism have the same general problem, neither effectively determine where the power comes from.
With Plato we have this looming absolute truth that dictates where the power lies and who has it, but with Gorgias (the real, non-Plato dramatized Gorgias), the power lies in persuasion. And while I'm inclined to agree with him, in part, I also wonder when the last time I actually had a dietician tell me that a can of sweet corn would be an unacceptable meal choice. Never. So did the dietician convince me not to eat the corn? did someone create a panopticon and did I convince myself not to eat the corn? did my place mat as a child that had the food pyramid on it convince me not to eat the corn? did the Jolly Green Giant convince me not to eat the corn?
Who/what the hell holds the power of persuasion? If everyone does, than how do we explain the development of authority?
Rachael, I can't stop thinking about your can of corn. Is that can of sweet corn an acceptable dinner for you? You might be persuaded to not eat that can of corn, but it might actually be okay for you, whereas, given my chemical makeup - it wouldn't be okay for me. Although I am a fan of relativism,there are problems with its application. In general, it might be socially accepted that a can of sweet corn is not an acceptable dinner, but is that true for every scenario? What if the person contemplating this dinner choice doesn't have any other choice? Or the choice is between corn and a bag of Hershey Kisses? What if the person contemplating the choice is diabetic? Or isn't diabetic? What if the person lives in West Africa? These different perspectives justify the need for relativism, but there seems to be a downside to this as well.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea where I am going with all of this. Sorry. But you made me think. How dare you!...:)
Really, Rachael, it's all about portion size, right?