relativism

[Guest guest]

Relativism means that any thought system is automatically considered as

valid as any other. It does not mean that competing thought systems

can't have each value. But that value has to be proven. And the proof

is not that it merely exists, but that it has value outside it culture

of origin. Many tribal healing practices, for instance, do not have

efficacy outside a belief system. This does not diminish the importance

of these medical systems in their cultures, but it is relativistic to

say that any healing practice done by any indigenous person in all of

history is just as valuable as those used in chinese med. Some systems

may be of great value, others bunk. The fact that china and chinese med

have endured speaks for itself. Chinese medicine obviously has

independant validity that has easily transcended cultural boundaries

many times in history. that it can effectively serve so many diverse

cultures just in asia alone is proof that it is no placebo.

 

So to debate the virtues of various systems does not smack of

relativism. To just honor kampo because it exists would be. I think

Robert Hayden has shown us that kampo is worthy of its own respect when

studied in its own right.

 

Agains, relativism is the academic equivalent of political correctness.

the logical absurdity of relativism in the field of cultural

anthropology can be seen in articles that purport to justify customs

like human sacrifice, torture, genital mutilation, slavery and war as OK

in the name of cultural uniqueness, while others paradoxically

(schizophrenically?) roundly condemn the same activities in moderns as

aberrations that occurrred after we became " civilized " . That is

relativism.

 

We are having a open discussion.