[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[Lee Corbin]

Stefano writes below that "arguing for the 'objective superiority
of objectivity' does not really seem to add much to one's such stance". 

Which, I am forced to concede, does contain a grain of circularity  :-)

> > I frankly disagree with your claim, at least when I
> > emphasize a certain word there:  "it [doesn't make sense] to
> > *strive* for some kind of "disembodied", "objective"  perspective.
> 
> I am reluctant to embark in a full epistemological discussion here,
> let alone in English,

I understand. To me, it's slightly miraculous that any philosophy could
be done outside of one's native tongue. But then, I'm just a monolingual :-(

> but I think that for the purpose of the present discussion we
> can consider my position as limited to *value* judgment, such
> as those considering the different "contributions" of civilisations
> to what one considers, e.g.,  the achievements of our species.

I'm not sure I understand.

> > And you write "it is part of the (European) historiographic
> > tradition to take into account to some extent external narratives..."
> > as if there were any question that this is an entirely laudable activity.
> > To me, of *course* taking into account external narratives is
> > something that always ought to be done.
> 
> It *is* - for me (and for you, obviously). And I also maintain
> that this is not just our personal position, but an idea quite
> widespread in our culture - which exactly makes for the
> "superiority" of its historical works. 

It's too bad you (probably wisely) cannot enter into an
epistemological discussion, because in a number of ways,
the "superiority" of one culture over another is as factual
as night and day. As I said, though, there is a sliding scale...

> But in saying that I have no qualms to admit that this is
> a purely "chauvinistic" point of view, since we have to
> accept that such attitude is far from generalised across
> human cultures, civilisations and eras.

To take an obviously much more extreme example, the
same argument might be directed to parents who 
consider themselves "superior" to their three-year-olds.
It is indeed chauvinistic for them to actually go so far as
to use force (!) to prevent these children from playing
in the streets.

English speaking children, incidentally, and quite
beautifully, have their own way of remembering the
Black Death. Every spring the six- and seven-year-olds
take the four- and five-year-olds by the hand, and
teach them to play "Ring around the Rosey"[1]. They
have their way of remembering the terrible event,
and we have ours.

But as charming as theirs is, ours really is superior. :-)

> On the contrary, arguing for the "objective superiority of
> objectivity" does not really seem to add much to one's such stance. 

Right.

> Multiculturalism in fact implies that *we are at least as entitled
> to adhere to our own paradigms as Bororos are*, 

I had to look that up:

        The Bororos are a South American tribe living
        in the Brazilian states of Matto Grosso and Goyaz
        and averaging a height of over six feet. They were
        reduced in number in 1650 by the Portuguese.

> the accepted western historical methods being certainly
> in some sense part of those paradigms.

Yes. But I'll still say that the Christian Scientists who turn to
prayer when their children are dying of a treatable disease
*are* misguided, *are* backwards, and do have an inferior
understanding of the reality of sickness and health.

> Different roads to the same destination, I guess... :-)

Yes, perhaps only our language here is different. It sounds
as though you and I would tend to take the same actions
and support the same policies (e.g., no one should force
Christian Scientists to take their children to conventional
hospitals or to use modern medicine).

Lee

[1] 
Ring around the rosy
A pocketful of posies
"Ashes, Ashes"
We all fall down!

But, on the actual history of the rhyme, 
see http://www.rhymes.org.uk/ring_around_the_rosy.htm