Den föreliggande texten är en utifrån ett socialkonstruktionistisk och relativistiskt perspektiv baserad undersökning av relativismens och realismens skilda ontologier. Texten argumenterar för giltigheten i en socialkonstruktionistisk förståelse av det sociala och framvisar ett antal framträdande problem med realismens Weltanschauung. Relaterat till detta behandlas en diskursteoretisk  syn på sociala fenomen tillsammans med etnometodologiskt och foucauteanskt inriktade perspektivs olika uppfattningar om valet av relevant kontext vid samhällsvetenskapliga analyser. Vidare genomförs en diskurspsykologisk läsning av en tidsskriftsartikel, en läsning som framför allt exemplifierar problematiken med realismens konstruktion av verkligheten som objektiv och självframträdande. Slutligen görs i textens avslutande del ett försök att fördjupa den socialkonstruktionistiska kritiken av realismen, framför allt i syfte att antyda en möjlighet att bryta dualismen autonom verklighet–konstruerad verklighet samt utstaka riktningen för en motsättningarnas sociologi.

The topic of this study is to what extent standards of rational inquiry can be rationally criticized and revised. It is argued that it is rational to treat all such standards as open to criticism and revision. Arguments to the effect that we are fallible with regard to all standards of rational inquiry are presented. Standards cannot be ultimately justified and with certainty established either as adequate or as inescapable presuppositions. Apel's attempt to give ultimate justifications of certain moral and logical rules is examined and criticized. Special attention is given to our fallibility with regard to logical inference rules. The idea that certain logical rules cannot be put into question because any critical argument presupposes them is criticized. It has been claimed that there must be some basic standards which are such that they cannot be rationally evaluated and hence are rationally unrevisable. This is called "the unrevisability thesis". Related to this thesis is the normative policy according to which rationality requires that some standards be treated as unrevisable, the unrevisability policy. Two arguments that have been used to defend the unrevisability thesis and policy are examined and criticized. The conclusion is that we are not forced to accept either the thesis or the policy. The negation of the unrevisability policy is the revisability policy, according to which it is rational to treat all standards as open to rational criticism and revision. Objections that have been directed against the revisability policy are discussed and criticized. According to the objections, the revisability policy leads to rationality relativism. These objections are refuted, and it is argued that it is, on the contrary, rational to adopt the revisability policy and treat all standards of rational inquiry as criticizable and revisable. It is proposed that the rational change of standards should be viewed as a bootstrap process. General features of a bootstrap view of rational change of standards are presented, and it is argued that it is impossible to formulate a real theory of bootstrapping. Two models of standard change are presented and discussed: Laudan's reticulated model of scientific rationality and Briskman's bootstrap theory. It is claimed that in spite of defects and limitations, these models contribute to a richer understanding of bootstrapping. The fallibility and revisability of standards of rational inquiry have consequences for how the normativity of rationality should be understood. The book ends with an account of how the rationality of cognitive actions is related to the idea of the adequacy of standards. A distinction between absolute and standard-relative rationality is made, and it is argued that what an inquiring agent rationally ought to do coincides with what it is standard-relatively rational for him to do. It is shown that this view of rationality of inquiry is nevertheless inconsistent with rationality relativism, and that it is compatible with an objectivistic view of rationality. / digitalisering@umu

Moral realism is the view that there are such things as moral facts. Moral realists have attempted to combat the skeptical problem of relativism, which is that the truth of an ethical value judgment is often, or always, subjective, that is, relative to the parties it involves. This essay presents, discusses, and criticizes Hilary Putnam’s attempt at maintaining moral realism while at the same time maintaining a degree of epistemological relativism. Putnam’s positive account originates in moral epistemology, at the heart of which lies truth, as idealized rational acceptability or truth under ideal conditions. The bridge between moral epistemology and normative ethics stems from Putnam’s disintegration of facts and values. His theory is finalized in the construction of a normative moral theory, in which the central notion is incessant self-criticism in order to maintain rationality. After presenting Putnam’s core thesis, the criticism raised by Richard Rorty, is deliberated upon. Rorty is critical of Putnam’s attempt at holding on to objectivity, because he does not understand how objective knowledge can be both relative to a conceptual scheme, and at the same time objective. The conclusion is that Putnam is unable to maintain his notion of truth as idealized rational acceptability and is forced into epistemological relativism. Putnam’s normative ethics has characteristics in common with virtue ethics, and is of much interest regardless of whether it can be grounded epistemologically or not.

The aim of this study is to examine the relation between Nietzsche&rsquo / s perspectivism and his doctrine of the will to power and to show that perspectivism is almost a direct and natural consequence of the doctrine of the will to power. Without exploring the doctrine, it is not possible to understand what Nietzsche&rsquo / s perspectivism is and what he trying to do by proposing it as an alternative to traditional epistemology. To this aim, firstly, Nietzsche&rsquo / s doctrine of the will to power is explained in detail. Next, in order to provide a deeper understanding of the doctrine, its relation with Darwinism and the claims which say that it is a metaphysical principle are analyzed. Afterwards, Nietzsche&rsquo / s construction of the world as becoming out of will to power is investigated. Nietzsche&rsquo / s conception of interpretation as power struggle and its role in perspectivism explained. Then, how Nietzsche&rsquo / s construction of the world as becoming and his concept of interpretation as power struggle emerge as perspectivism is explained. After that, in order to present the differences between Nietzsche&rsquo / s perspectivism and traditional understanding of epistemology, Nietzsche&rsquo / s critiques of some of the fundamental assumptions of traditional epistemology, i.e., causality, logic, and subject-object and apparent-real world distinctions, are investigated. Finally, Nietzsche&rsquo / s understanding of truth based on his perspectivism is inquired. Its relation with correspondence, pragmatic and coherence theories of truth is explored to show that Nietzsche&rsquo / s understanding of truth could not be comprehended through these theories. Consequently, it is claimed that the tendency to attribute a truth theory to Nietzsche&rsquo / s perspectivism, which is prevalent in the current Nietzsche studies, stems from commentator&rsquo / s, consciously or unconsciously, ignoring of the relation between his perspectivism and his doctrine of the will to power.

<p>The aim of this research was to examine whether a significant relationship exists between ethical decision-making had an impact on HR employees within a retail organisation. The questionnaire for the South African Board for People Practices, and the Ethical Position Questionnaire was administered to a sample of 150 employees in a large retail organisation within the Western Cape &ndash / South Africa. The researcher used a non-probability sampling technique specifically, a convenience sampling approach. The results of this study indicate that there is a statistically significant correlation between moral awareness and decision-making amongst HR employees. However with regards to gender there seems to be no statistical significant relationship amongst HR employees and ethical decision-making. Similarly results also indicated that there was no significant relationship between ethical ideology and ethical decision-making. Notwithstanding the limited generalisability of this study, implications for research and practice are suggested and recommendations are made to facilitate improved functioning.</p>

Some form of absolutism has generally been the majority view within philosophy and in other traditions, and it is common to take absolutism for granted without providing rational arguments or empirical evidence in support of it. However, such attitudes are not viable if we want to avoid dogmatism. In this paper, I question absolutism and the closely associated correspondence theory of truth through the writings of Goodman and Nāgārjuna. I first describe Goodman‟s philosophy with a focus on his works dealing with „worldmaking‟ and multiple true versions. Subsequently follows an outline of Nāgārjuna‟s philosophy, in which he intended to show that the notion of an essence, an inherently existent entity or relation, is incoherent and that essences would be incompatible with experience. I then reflect on the relation between absolutism and relativism, and propose that the philosophies of Goodman and Nāgārjuna make it possible to transcend both. The paper ends with a discussion on the notion of knowledge in the absence of absolute entities and essences. From the works of Goodman, Nāgārjuna, and Bohm, I put forward the idea that an aspiration for a greater good and fitting is more general than a desire for knowledge of entities, and that it is therefore important to be aware of the larger context in which any given entity appears so that it can be seen to what extent further inquiry and use of it can lead to a greater good and fitting.

Meiner nichtreduktionistischen Lesart Gadamers, derzufolge eine wechselseitige konstitutive Relation zwischen „Sprache“ und „Erfahrung“ besteht, ist es gestattet, den Vorwurf, die Sprachphilosophie Gadamers führe in den Relativismus, den man häufig gegenüber sprachphilosophischen Positionen erhebt, abzuweisen. Manchen Denkern zufolge haben die Philosophen der Postmoderne, zu denen auch Gadamer gezählt wurde, eine einfache Umkehrung der beiden Pole des modernen Verhältnisses „Sprache“ – „Erfahrung“ vollzogen: Während die Sprache in der Moderne in ihrer Bedingtheit zur Erfahrung und als bloßes Ausdrucksmittel verstanden wurde, wurde dieses Verhältnis in der neueren Philosophie nur umgekehrt, insofern die Philosophie in der Sprache das Fundament für die Erfahrung sehe, wonach die Erfahrung als ein Ausdruck der Sprache erscheine. Die vorliegende Arbeit setzt sich mit diesem Relativismusvorwurf auseinander und beabsichtigt, eine wechselseitige Abhängigkeit zwischen Sprache und Erfahrung ausgehend von Hans-Georg Gadamers Werk zu entwickeln. Um das zu erreichen, wurden zunächst eine doppelte negative-positive Erfahrungsstruktur und dann einige phänomenologische und transzendentale Merkmale der Erfahrung auf dem historischen Hintergrund für Gadamers Erfahrungsbegriff herausgearbeitet. Somit machte sich die konstitutive Sprachlichkeit der Erfahrung erkennbar. In einer Auseinandersetzung mit dem Sprachbegriff auf der anderen Seite wurde sein dialogischer und welterschließender Charakter veranschaulicht, so dass auch seine Angewiesenheit auf die Welterfahrung offenkundig wurde. / This work deals with a particular relativistic objection on Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy of language, according to which the position of language has such a prior status so that human experience is solely dependent on the language people speak. That is a reductionist approach to Gadamer’s hermeneutic, which ascribes language an exclusively explanatory and foundational status. I am taking this objection to a close examination and develop a double argumentation line: On the one side I show how the concept of world experience is language determined, and on the other side how the language itself is determined by our experience of the world. In order to argue for this interdependence, I first examined the positive and negative structure of experience, some phenomenological and transcendental features and offered a short historical background of ties to selected philosophical heritage. In the second part of the work I developed a concept of language that argues for its dialogical and not absolutely transsubjective character, also for its world-disclosing alongside its communicative and representational dimension. Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy of language, belonging to the continental philosophy or HHH Theories represents an antireductionist approach to language after the linguistic turn, which is often criticized for a linguistic reductionism and relativism.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 176-181). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Nas últimas décadas, assistimos a uma verdadeira reabilitação da autoconsciência retórica – com Hayden White no papel de arauto – no âmbito da historiografia. Contudo, embora o trabalho de White tenha se mostrado para muitos – entre os quais me incluo – como uma tentativa de ―avanço‖ em nossa autoconsciência, ele foi, paradoxalmente, muitas vezes visto e apresentado em discursos escandalizados como sinônimo de ―retrocesso‖ e ―obscurantismo‖. Persuadido do contrário – de que o ―ceticismo‖ de White não é um mal – prejudicial, contraproducente ou pernicioso ao nosso ofício –, eu analiso críticas desferidas ao dito ―relativismo linguístico‖. Tendo em vista a controvérsia filosófica da linguagem como portadora de referencialidade ocorrida entre a primeira sofística e Platão no Mundo Antigo, demonstro como as censuras de Carlo Ginzburg – o mais virulento de seus críticos – buscaram fundamento na argumentação platônico-aristotélica contra o relativismo da primeira sofística. Reapresento também argumentos de outros historiadores escandalizados com o trabalho de White para evidenciar que um tópos comum na argumentação desses críticos constitui-se como platonismo: a noção de que o ―narrativismo‖ conduz ao dilema teórico da impossibilidade de dizer o falso, tese atribuída por Platão à primeira sofística, para quem os múltiplos discursos arruinariam a própria noção de verdade. Paralelamente, a fim de demonstrar que esse dilema existe apenas no horizonte platônico (que compartimenta verdade e ficção em dois blocos distintos e separados), reavalio a relação entre história, verdade e ficção. Por fim, e considerando a linguagem como um elemento inexpugnável do discurso nas ciências humanas, defendo as perspectivas de White e da primeira sofística contra o voo platônico de superação da nossa inevitável condição humana. / In the last decades, we have witnessed a true rehabilitation of rhetorical self-conscience – with Hayden White in the Herald paper – in the context of historiography. However, while White's work has been shown for many – including myself – as an attempt to ―advance‖ in our self-consciousness, he was, paradoxically, often seen and presented in scandalized discourses as a synonym for ―setback‖ and ―obscurantism‖. Persuaded otherwise – that the White‘s ―skepticism‖ is not an evil – harmful, counterproductive or pernicious to our craft – i analyze the criticisms triggered to the so-called ―linguistic relativism.‖ Considering the philosophical controversy of language as ―carrier of referentiality‖ occurred between the first sophistic and Plato in the Ancient World, I demonstrate how the reproaches of Carlo Ginzburg – the most virulent of his critics – sought essentials in the platonic-aristotelian arguments against the relativist of the first sophistry. I evaluate as well arguments of other scandalized historians with White's work to show that a common topos in the argument of these critics constitutes itself as Platonism: the notion that the ―narrativism‖ leads to the theoretical dilemma of the impossibility of say the false, argument given by Plato to first sophistic, and to whom the multiple discourses would undermine the very notion of truth. In parallel, in order to demonstrate that this dilemma exists only in the platonic horizon (which compartmentalize truth and fiction in two distinct and separate blocks), i evaluate again the relation between history, truth and fiction. Finally, and considering the language as an inexpugnable element of discourse in the human sciences, I advocate the prospects of White and the first sophistic against platonic flight overcoming our inevitable human condition.

Nas últimas décadas, assistimos a uma verdadeira reabilitação da autoconsciência retórica – com Hayden White no papel de arauto – no âmbito da historiografia. Contudo, embora o trabalho de White tenha se mostrado para muitos – entre os quais me incluo – como uma tentativa de ―avanço‖ em nossa autoconsciência, ele foi, paradoxalmente, muitas vezes visto e apresentado em discursos escandalizados como sinônimo de ―retrocesso‖ e ―obscurantismo‖. Persuadido do contrário – de que o ―ceticismo‖ de White não é um mal – prejudicial, contraproducente ou pernicioso ao nosso ofício –, eu analiso críticas desferidas ao dito ―relativismo linguístico‖. Tendo em vista a controvérsia filosófica da linguagem como portadora de referencialidade ocorrida entre a primeira sofística e Platão no Mundo Antigo, demonstro como as censuras de Carlo Ginzburg – o mais virulento de seus críticos – buscaram fundamento na argumentação platônico-aristotélica contra o relativismo da primeira sofística. Reapresento também argumentos de outros historiadores escandalizados com o trabalho de White para evidenciar que um tópos comum na argumentação desses críticos constitui-se como platonismo: a noção de que o ―narrativismo‖ conduz ao dilema teórico da impossibilidade de dizer o falso, tese atribuída por Platão à primeira sofística, para quem os múltiplos discursos arruinariam a própria noção de verdade. Paralelamente, a fim de demonstrar que esse dilema existe apenas no horizonte platônico (que compartimenta verdade e ficção em dois blocos distintos e separados), reavalio a relação entre história, verdade e ficção. Por fim, e considerando a linguagem como um elemento inexpugnável do discurso nas ciências humanas, defendo as perspectivas de White e da primeira sofística contra o voo platônico de superação da nossa inevitável condição humana. / In the last decades, we have witnessed a true rehabilitation of rhetorical self-conscience – with Hayden White in the Herald paper – in the context of historiography. However, while White's work has been shown for many – including myself – as an attempt to ―advance‖ in our self-consciousness, he was, paradoxically, often seen and presented in scandalized discourses as a synonym for ―setback‖ and ―obscurantism‖. Persuaded otherwise – that the White‘s ―skepticism‖ is not an evil – harmful, counterproductive or pernicious to our craft – i analyze the criticisms triggered to the so-called ―linguistic relativism.‖ Considering the philosophical controversy of language as ―carrier of referentiality‖ occurred between the first sophistic and Plato in the Ancient World, I demonstrate how the reproaches of Carlo Ginzburg – the most virulent of his critics – sought essentials in the platonic-aristotelian arguments against the relativist of the first sophistry. I evaluate as well arguments of other scandalized historians with White's work to show that a common topos in the argument of these critics constitutes itself as Platonism: the notion that the ―narrativism‖ leads to the theoretical dilemma of the impossibility of say the false, argument given by Plato to first sophistic, and to whom the multiple discourses would undermine the very notion of truth. In parallel, in order to demonstrate that this dilemma exists only in the platonic horizon (which compartmentalize truth and fiction in two distinct and separate blocks), i evaluate again the relation between history, truth and fiction. Finally, and considering the language as an inexpugnable element of discourse in the human sciences, I advocate the prospects of White and the first sophistic against platonic flight overcoming our inevitable human condition.