BEYOND OBJECTIVISM AND RELATIVISM: SCIENCE, HERMENEUTICS, AND PRAXIS RICHARD J. BERNSTEIN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA PRESSPART ONE BEYOND OBJECTIVISM AND RELATIVISM: AN OVERVIEW ha ht teu rf aol the THERE gz means thet as ead dhougout nella and cultural life: leaflets almont every discipline and every aspect of our lives This neasnes i expected by te openion = jective an velativism, ot there area variety of other fut of this framework of thinking have al eo Hequesty been asin Slated te chee standard oppositions2 eyond Objecumem and Relvisn Tie ae, howe, ny sgn ht te dep asumpions ‘commitments, and metaphors that have shaped these oppositions, sd rom which they pan tel sete os ae beng ech ton an the doce Seip SEssoes Ses pow wee tanec Sin whch be Slo arcs ed ops Mang eh he ‘efrmtng haperng tuscan gee et ae tol pace win ice nt anf eb tie ‘#0 urgent need to move beyond objectivism and relativism. My purpose in this study is to probe this complex phenomenon, ws cla wow upping ve eee at 2a {Salcual stcl wtarae Naae I Sh yelper beng eae ‘decoy cpg i arb ean ease anng of she mie teed sheen a Sliptincndro Satine nite Mine eee Ev ake out rently song pln Wale eRe, {eects may apes eye a cu ee lathe nates ne ssingeemen asa aes, thee ol ape oe er comertecon iS eg neg lise a contin sb hn ni aa ‘ene egnang opis ee anomeric a ‘Spnant mics fr hacia epaaeer ee ee “Stowe whch ete conac aha okt ne ofconpetty wise cn erent SRS pempnestckpimnt al memsbeete eee Echt of leone Tee moh fe ie ees ‘ees by pripans ns een ann fon te away sped aoe hee Stcomernion toutes mia elie a ‘cn Semenes nd pas he etek es Stes ae nth ey ee aber ane shred ecg comnts a ne $n fet the det ide i ‘within it. J es om # mune pepsi, many contenporey dees we sail sutured within eadtonal exremes The isos Bin eet at ine Sal tape eco nak seo a tle me tim ace Kae pani cnc oa rhe we ancl en nm An ne 3 An Overview snd nihilism, Whether we fous onthe exlgins of analytic pilso- By or phenomenology, there wasn ealierpeied of incelectoal anfdence and option, a couviction tht we had nally discov ‘red the secre pat for phlosopy, the right "method" for making fenuine intellectual popes, for toring philosophy into a ds line that woald yield Hnowiedge lepustem, instead of beng che endless batleground fr competing and shifting opinions (axa In this respec dhe dferences between such cental Sige a Roel, snd Hsed ae less sgnifcan than what hey shared. Both were at ‘ne time convinced thatthe eal” foundation or ground of pilose phy hd bean discovered and thet the methods and procedures for Setouly advancing philosophic inguiry wee at hand: The fact that Such clams had been made over and over eain in the part—and have becomes persistent theme siace the time of Descartes—wes taken not a evidence forthe dbiousnes ol ube roe ol grounding Dhilosophy but rather a sign ofthe "ecandal”of philosophy that Alem reaaltion Buta we follow the internal developrnent the twentieth century ef bots Anglo-American and continental philsophy, we can detect ineeaing doubts about the pejet of ‘rounding pulosophy, knowledge and language “The movement from confidence to skeptclam about founds- tons, methods and tonal enters of eslaton bat not ben lane ‘a pilosops. The confusion and uncertainty in plotopy exhibics land reflects « phenomenon tha is characteristic of oor insect fd cla ie, Inthe entre range ofthe human and vol sieaces, ‘ye have wituesed the playing ost of bold stempts to scare fu: {stons and the elaborations of new methods that promise genuine knowledge, fllowed by a questioning that reveals racks and rey. {ens in what had been taken tobe sidan scuce Thee saris (0 be almost a rush t embrace trou forms of reatvim. Whether ve reflect onthe nature of scence, oF allen soeiete, or diferent Histencal epochs, or sacred and teary exe, we Bear woes ling ts that thee ano hard “Tacs of the matter” snd that almost anything goes” Whether we focus on sack cherished subjects ia plllsophy as vationlity, wuth, Knowledge, realty, ox norms, we Teen a be confooted with inommensuréle paradigms, theres, Conceptual heres or formas of life. We have been tld thet isa ‘Muston and a deep self-deception to think that sere ie some over ‘rchingfemevork, some neutral descriptive language, ne ptm ‘ent standards of rationality to which Wwe can sppedl in ode 10 ‘Gnderstand and extcally evaluate the comping class tht ae ‘made, and chat we ae Lnited eo or hstorcl context ad (0 Out4 Beyond Objects end Relais ‘social pratices, The dicem or hope that many phiosephers bine Rudco gusp the world ub apectssetemitotor—, we ate ‘eld ecesvangiusion that eds to dogmas snd even ferro, ip not ast an intelectual ce, noi erred to “ae tee ee ee oe (Sarat gms seu man ee aS tat toe gol as ene ef tic es eee tig cn ae ees oe seamount iy te omy of ee a oe Seach Sie peter tel Spee eae Sees cae emer feo ses Senta cenliceapatesasltcuareete neat Se en end er ase ds Pate ct ela ah ela Pa te oS =o pee eee coor hee ee eee SS Sree ema ns h opt marley sone wees el ‘sesamiae npn od cage in is wecemt werk Read res moe tapi od ld Sm iol on Seen eb Ths et of pws lg be “etn owl poche cet Tao tn ace SETH wef ete hase hm meses ‘Shon wh whe Tors ad Roe hice et Keyed on, | 5 AnOveniew rents of what 1s taking place inthe contemporary world ae fat ‘ore ngnficant tan muy ofthe ecb! snd professional ees that divide them Popper think of self 5 the pole defender of the "open sociery,which:s bez heated, Hew agaist al forms ‘dati, stalin, an tasnicnn, ut Feyerabend aceser Topper sd tose sympathchic wien hn coceines a Beane exe 2 Gngerou iision Fupper's tuning up Feyerabend s view, ul: Tpately feats to turther closure and fcty to» ne aed form of {fopmausm the ss the enemy of aman feedom, sponcanety, and treaty Feyerabend scales bd seks to underane the" pur ical sencusness” represented by Popper. The opposition between Poppet snd Feyerabend. especuallyimorsa {hae ale thee pac. falmerl onenttons ean extreme example of typical conta ‘hae oceans saety of deen contents and domino dscuse (Compare te stjle and content of Feyerabend's atackon “pethod led rotionaiy wth Jacques Demis punning assis on the tnetaphysics of presence") ‘May profesional philosophers, while they ae crtcal of Popper and rpard Feyerabend os ivesponsbl, nevertheless share the tic onviction of Descartes, Kant, Hosted, he eat lopeal posit, Gnd indeed most modern philosopher, that ghilcsophy has now Finally discovered ts "proper obec” andthe right way of pong abot falving philosophic problems. Michael Dummett, leading some ‘would say the leading) British phietopher of eu tne has Ycently claimed nly wih ge was the oper aie of phsopy ally exablabe Spry est te theeal of Paseo the eas fhe sae ‘hoes sconly, at he oy of ous cb shar stale fom the sty ofthe ppeologalpocss of thang sn Bly, at the only popes meted fox asipsng tough conus ate oa of Llngonte The scepance a ive ce eet seman othe ae oly chon eae ake nny sally sce is eth eagle wt ee an per conch how thas it reasnabe o get ll ashame with sepuciom, ace {Uy bove beta state many ues telre tb ery plone ‘tat thesia ened by pigs ck os systema eae sepia ro ries bart tt ers os ange tat tect hs a ay ck ‘ol nl every pop oo the dcr of fant weed Hips mcersnete devas conectrbbwenea seg Sno ‘lered ehat he wan lng fot poepy what Ell bod ore ereBusts not oly “oie silotopy who ae septs Such ah lder a ld Roy bet tc es het {steal of pilosophy i tu we we il clea tse by he wer conception of lcrophy that Duminee sede Ne Stl sa that thee such hing ws ope ey Bhosopy,e piasonty ens pope tinct i hnec on ent ane els a Otology er dang ths Acting fo Rasy eae sep el ently Yak at eben acters ene {aewil fu ofthe sion andes eespeenste eae iSeeaa ety ume cnet don Sey ee pay on ‘inane a apg age te Tete ety aut Se ne a he writ ety im noes Duma Sit du espero’ Rory eo cane ee a es Ain try cD recs wh Cay Ue Dewey neem nye cl heer ee her opt te oe eyes i ey immed ny pen aan Pilati cee wed oe nee oes eee ‘sttaied men oe es Ta) Bees, Ree ‘Sep ol pny ar Pons ENE mnt sea Stine ey lpr ucla one en 7 Ax Overview “Tost ter wok sherpa ber than once, ding ther TER sre dee to mae he oe gon sown mo oe ‘While Duromete eens himself oa prophet who will be vindeated by fature developments, fom Rome's perpesive be looks more ke ‘nach eatonary who is despersey yg to halon to what has een dieredited and ought to be abandoned. Te cones berwees Damn nd Rony is nats ol the mow de snd anctheial understandings ofthe secomplisment of ind feent analyte philosophy but of the sel-understanding of water opecl a by the contrast herwen Poppez “The peo epostion represented bythe coast sand Feyertbend aot loelized to any school of plesophy, or ere {0 philooply Kast, te same is tue of the anthesis between [Bummer snd Rory The repeted sees on these oppositions, snd the swinging back and forth ofthe pendulum of philosophic debate {nation t them, suggest that sere Gferet and more pene ‘eating interpretation of what i appening in philoso and ore {soe nthe ange ofthe ular! Gsiglines Like Rory 1 ine tre ae coming eth end—the playing out—ofanintlleetal tad oa Rory eal he "CartesiabLasean-Rantan tation Bat Talo thin Rory misses what i now inthe process of emerging* Winen we think and work trough the most aca conerpo zany philosophic debates, we wil discover that ews which iiialy ‘ers fragmentary, contin, and even consadirory ulmately converge and coer. 1 donot want to mathe exageatd lai for Something that ssl inthe proces of developing sometimes in ‘ery tentative an hesitan way, bt [intend to show tht there we ‘ow sulin signs and engene to reveal the shape and the eat of this new undertnding of oor hasan sisson Th arer to se he conten fo this investigation i Ampstane to lay n'a pinay manner wha ean by “jects” Sd “eleva and why Tae sto ete ental eat ppo- Siton of oor te, Both terms have been sed with shiking mean: {ngs Purehermons, might seem tha ce tral contrast fo parse re the tetera “objectiven” and "oubjecuamn” ot between en alti wile ng te em abet inn and “rlavnm in an extemely rod sense _ ffom some of he standard piloonie acs of there exrestons Ab proce wil introduce fre reiscment od qalfeatins18 Beyond Obetvism end Relativism OBJECTIVISM AND RELATIVISM By “obectivism,” [mean the basic conviction tha there sor must be some permanent sistorcal matix ot famework to whic we an ulunstaly appeal in deteining the natute of rationality, oowlede, rth eli, gootnes, oc rghines. An cbecist clams hat there is or must be) sock a matax and thatthe pm task of the philosopher sto discover what ti and to suport his ox et {lau to have discovered sucha mates with te strongest pone Feasons, Objectivim is closely slated to foundetionaism and the Search for an Archimedean point ‘The ebjecivist maintasy thet ‘less we can ground philosophy, knowledge, or language ina gor ‘ous manaer we eanno soi radial skepticism. ‘The elativst not only denies te postive claims of che objectiv- ist but goes further In its strongest form, elaivism i the bas fnvietion tht when we tum tothe examination of those concepts ‘hat philosophers have talento be the most fondamenal whether itis the concept tational, ruth, ality right, the good, oe narme— ‘we ar forced to recognize that ia the Anal amas allsvch consepta ‘ust be understood as relative to a specifle conceptual scheme, theoretial fmewor,paraigm, form of if, soeety, or culture ‘Since the relaivis believes that there sr ean te a ponseducbie, plurality of such eaneepesal heres, he or ehe challenge he Claim ht these concepts cam hate ¢ determinate and vnivoral egal tance. Fr the reativiat there fs no substantive overarching fame ‘work or singe metdanguage by which we ean rationally adjudicate (t univocaly evaluate competing elaims of alterauive paradigms. “Thus, for example, when we tum to something a6 fundamental ss the fous oferta oe sandands of rationality, the claiviet clas ‘ha we ean never escape fom the predicament of speaking of “ost” and “their” standards of raionality—standads tat maybe “adie {ally ncommensurable "Iisa ilvsion to chink that thet ie omne- ‘hing cha might ropely be labled “the standards of rationality” Standards chat are genuinely universal and that are not subject #0 [iste or temporal change. "The ago between abjecivnts and relatives has been with us fever since the origins of Wester pllovophy, ot at lest om the time of Pat's atack on che Sophists and on Protgoras’s alleged ‘elvis, But ies only recent ues that dhe complex sauce that ‘hie debate ruzes have become smote bscesive and have steed to ‘tery ares of human inquiry and life. Despite che many novel twists sod tus in this ancient debate, tha exited = remahable cont 9 Anoverew ‘ult. Each time tha an objectvist has come up with what he othe ‘akes tobe a firm foundation, anontelogieal grounding, = Sed eate- {til scheme, someone has challenged such aims and has argued that wat is rupposed to be fixe, eternal lime, eeesary, ot Sndubtableis open to doubt and questioning, The reltvstacetees the ebjecis of mustang wha fs at bet historialy or cletaliy Stable for the eternal sn permanent When the cjectvist lst ‘Come up with clear and distinct entero foopro!wansceadeatal Srgumencs to support his or her claims, the telat saguee that lose examination reveals tat tere is something feduent nd lngensous abou such sats. bot ever since Mato objective have tngued that estvim, whenever ii clay state, i selfeefeen: {lly inconsistene and paredoiel For impli ex exp, te ‘elaivise claims tht hs other positon is tue, et he eltive leo Insists that sine truth is elative, whats tens ve may seo be Idle Consequently latvia isell may be toe and tse: One ‘anaot consisted state he ease for slaivisn without undermin ing i Asso frequently happens in philosophy, che agursene tends to sift from aulstantive claims shout what at the proper fume tons and how we know them to who he the busden of proot Obie: tivst argue, rather ke Damme, that even though we ean ankly ‘ecoglae the flutes of pat philovopher, chi te noes eulfient ot {ven a god reason for thinking that we canna scover the "proper ‘hjee” of philosophy anda “eystematic methodology for maling ‘genuine progress. Because philosophers like Roty and the eying thinkers thet he admtes see che cap of tying to prove that the bjectvise i fondamentellycisaben, they employ « frm of id ‘ect communication and pulosophicttrapy thats ntende to loosen the grip that objetviem has ypon usa therapy tha ees o liber ‘6s rom the obsession wich cbjecuvism sn foundatonlism. Te should be clear that Iam ung he term "objecsviszn” ina ‘ay thats far more inclusive than som alts standard uses. "Obie tivism” has frequently been used to designate metaphysical real- Jsm—the claim that there i «wos of objective veal hat exits Independesdy of us and what has a determinate nature or essence that we ean know. In modern mes atjectivisa has teen closely Lnled with an acceptance of «bsie metapyscl or epistemelogiea Alstnetion between the ebjet snd the ject What is "out dere” [objectives presumed ro be independent of us ebjes) and koowe fdgeis achieved when a subject comedy mirorsorrepreseats objec tive reality. Tie dominant frm of abjecivism sol one ate of the species, We ean vead Kant andthe tradition of wanstendental10 Boyan Objectivism and Raat LL An Overview henomenclogy The fat of philosophy and indeed she fate of Ero I philosophy that he initiated a6 questioning the very possiblity of fi ‘aking sense ofthe objectivity of knowledge by resorting to mets Boeia aly ore reel rs Sine gala a Soe cna ate alae steep i Seat Soest rear eee ies Gatley Ear evgennia eat ‘on someatn is depen pyhisac pete py men Fei ii eT ei ls cisco Sn reteset erate “Seer cai pao Spey ns Fema Sc eee SrA Sisson a Eat Sierra Sorenson easy neat cy Sah i sey ein of shinee aes oe al Sciatic fans cette tear se Stragnconnmaieerr oe Sec etna name pict ine i ceesncteearea Went Suna has charactrises beta ts tmones up the round te wold STH regen, then or gated hropherprene este “oc {Suh eft word sets what nth olde ancondionliy ai fo Soto Eg hn a esc etn ‘lumi in Gyoed is aofarer xcs woul Hose aoa snbe? He contastobjctivism with tangcendentalism, which lame tht “he ontic meaning [Sensing] ofthe pepven fe wor is subroe: tive stracture [Gebtde,iis the achievement of experiencing. pre fclestiRe hfe" Transeendemaism is not to be coufused with the sppeal othe “psyehalogcalsubjesvity of human being foe “mate ‘tansendentalsm protests aginst psychological dels” and is to "have initiated» completly new ore of een procedure, the Uanscendental” Hossel draws the contrat between objets snd tanscendesalsm in the stongese possible manne in order to ‘et the stage fr his own investigation an defense of wanscendenal clue bess bound wp ithe fate of wanseendent be "According to Husserl, the most consequential issues. totem lose an culture rivaled inthe ade between ‘hrc andthe ype of transcendental that he defends. ‘Th whole history f philosophy since she appearence (i de enc dees et gece pony terete toons Semen efesivine and tanec palsy [eSPa tery of coon atesops wo main seers and to dlp {Es bas feces oo the ober oe of acme oy tanseedentalin to ‘ron the aie nad by thes of wanecadeeal see Sefiereebod eros” senelosy Nato of ut Huss als ro ss the esa simian beween the Ian tesa be ances abe leds if ok hte opin fo dace thereat pemanet endon of pawn ed itiwllgevefouaston that wl aioe bate, eigen “etropaapte ale Tanya say e cing nec ann the comagiaion? ws cst ic wt hua calle "obo. {i ted at he ae" hs conto Sompan dat che sic pltophie Googe har wane etmmaece Te ebould be clea from the way Tam using the term “eativim” shal st be sly Stiga to aati’ sl {neat nt Ses abesine andesaeeit sot cee STE ane isa sabes lente ca a SSCP, sacar ol tater esty hat en EEGSILLEDY oor seaceae of cantata weciony that bound bth or cai obec knee and he repre TeiZoval leery enesente Howey tee noting le Fre eet Steat cacpuon ef cmcenara ens Sprit hal tbe te dkeltne snares foo tte: So Ee iaine eel histo Deal we think ot septs iste coteon al mundo Snag tetera tell ‘enn wer mp mato peel nie, ered cracacay Manco svt ata aan Ilya subjecdise eI ave characterized the telat, hi or her aye ct cen gh seal acs get ence see langage pn stole pees oer Se ear ete planiy of ack chose pct Sei patentee no lan reahng acer12 Bowed Objecuvem and Relate ‘a which radically diferent and shematve schemes ae commnensi- ‘able—ao universal standards chat somehow sand ontige of sd shove these competing alternative But the relativist Sos not neces sary claim that there is anything subjective about these schemes, ardigms, and pectic, Given this chanterizatio of objecuvism and selaivism, ean ‘gin to explain why Lam foculng on this opposition rather than on that between relativism and absolutism, or between cbeciism snd subjectvism. Alchouph the quest for turainey and te reach for sbsoe constraints continues to haunt philosophy, there a sense in which “absclutsm" to use William James prs, eno longet a live” option. The dominant temper of ou ages libre, we focus on the history of our understanding of sence during the pest ‘hundred year, rom Pete to Popper, o a the development a pi ‘eamology ding this period, we cscover tht thinkers who disagree ‘op almost everything else agiee thar thee are no nent ke: (ge claims hat te ramtne ftom ccm Even a pisopher like “Htusel who elas to have discovered an entely new eclence and believes tha we can athiee spodiee knowledge ofthe structre of transcendental subjecuaty aeverbeles erophasians the way in which ‘wanscenderal phesomenslogy is open, dynamic, cooperative, end felible.Absolutsn i therefore no longer live option, ‘But eles eaubjecivim. The type of inscendental obec sma projected by Husotal hasbeen exensvely and devastatingly cit ict. However great Heidegger's debe eo Huser, we an interpret Heidegger's pilesophic journey asasing the prooundest questions shout the very Ide of eanacendentl phenomenology." Hedepget Blso probes te roots ofthe vastus forms of esbjectiviem hat have pervded madera thought He qestlons the whole mode of thinking ‘whereby we take the “subjects” andthe “objective” assigning s Davie epistemological or metaphysical distinction, Despite sane rearguard artepts to defend the typeof transcendental phenome ology cat Huss elaborated, the enue progam isn disaey. A Berrie cepticiam about the pouablry of a. tanecendonal ‘heoomenology is felt even by those who tsk of themecivs 28 ‘rorking within te phenomencogial edition. When we shi from “his intemal controversy within continental pilosopty to more ‘aden-varety notions of subject, becomes clear tat the mest ‘laste detanscs af relativism have nothing so do with subjectiee ‘sm. So while nether asaluusz nor subjectivity i ie option for us now, dhe choice between 2 sophisticated form of fllistic 13 An Overew bjectivism and a nonsubjective conception of rlativiam does seem See bie emma any ne wat ens een copie sad sa sl te ae cto a ene cane sone ‘Sens intiurl ral este erence oly tect Retains neonate Seen ae ‘Stet man fr tn shee dr opine ae ey a nt net Sol gunens Me tec’ clmed rev ng at Ses eka chen cope tue a Sens Rr com egy ee pat reed Soe ae ee ee "Song ane wasnt eat concerned wh ation svi br fv a hee wre nay ton te ea Sie fica aes cor ee ‘Sty ire bo Ean sc ee Sedona ct Tecpel Thou as wane tyne need oe eae aesan or andy the elec eke fs Sauce cases nds Paseo ppc Fist tcc pana ea bee wo motel aa Cis oot independent ngs ut stag 4 sage “omg al ety As ecko ae Seer cite at te Sacpatal Gopi BEE sei eet tna snemp oe may ok ens cat ay tc et el whey is slt‘ueat inno) A say sim of Ks ‘Rlltcophy weet une ocean forall a ere aan, Baron ee me neal nl es oe ck Pitetap ttt acy man es dara Str te Se matin cece Sigaladtoms een Toles nce dco owen eee peeyirer Neer re ePtcinng hi vt pot SSO Sen nes pis dt Se SE es ee ake Stee cunt ra eat Cee Sy wa meas tt qasueang ings cg14 Beyond Objectivism and Relativism the Ourhe sd of this get dive. Hep, Keep, Nietzsche, Schopeabaues, contemporary existent le Sea eel positvistwith diferent emphases sd ilosphicetvions ive questioned Kant catego pent: Al apes ee sSreting sealy wrong wth te cantata san ete ‘oral law than be pounded by an ape ope pais son. "he sett han ls mule ego Eat ae Tat is not only the spuments crigues and flues of phils pers that veld toa vac f peso oral elt ch TE pom yd ily cu ado ‘oplogy nay be need the een fled on Ese elroy cn sd Inthe focal dele, the despa abot tbe rounding of acme os gy arent Nae Weer Wee oo ned on an ultinte ad ubeldgesie ap been the land the ugh, teeween wher scene can tach bout he wodd and nt tlie moral mamma In this respect he wart lowe of Kane ihheugs a sodertanding of ei a te Ought dls fom ones Bu aldhough Weber ta thease vend sae aye Inwhich or seme kondge of wien eminence sr tae ‘poral noi, be hugh tat es eens ao any reel dc Plne cold esen the baden of exponsibity snd dsson that we ‘aus sasue in chooeng the “pod” or “deren tha we flow Wlrar ate ane ma ah dele of nee {resto who deopaed abou the possity—and nied tel igbiiyafaecoreings atonal pun for Ute mer norms ‘Aloo many of the tikes who hve itesed Rant onay dot rand hemes a'moral lass mg eve bee Sorel tae chi cochson can be diswn frm tel eiqucy, ‘everday some fom of slave seems tbe sn focus fensequence ofthe lns el ingiy they have pmied" Ntsc Small shoughe of socha senuviam tes fo fils the brevaling sicko thar was spreading hough Wester cline Ed tat he explored with su cul. ere a deny trong {nd penlexngqusin whether Netarche shows uty way fey eatoccie the nlm thas onto ote ‘Until recently this straggle about che statue and nature of mot lay hasbeen developed against the background conviction that at least in seience—especialy in the natural sienceswe have cleat 15 An Ovewiew and rigorous standards objectivity, tut, ztinality, progres, and {he growth of knowledge [although we ea also ind a questioning of ‘this eogms in Nictzche- But nour own cme serious doubts have ‘bean led abo the meaning ad warant fr thee claims. Whetht, tnd in what sense, Tova Kun ira relative isan iuscate ques: ton hae I wil explore in par Il. Bot sts undeniable that many thinkers expecially phlosopers, have persed hum and others who Ihave developed stallarpoaltons ae boing relatvsta. Kuba’ elaine shout the incommenrurabilty of val paradigms and about the tcluclat seasoning” involved in supporcing these pads ave ‘een interpreted as leading stig to relatvsm,subjectivism, and ‘retionaliss Although Kuhn hs consistently denied that this x ‘whathiohascatmedo htt is entailed by whathe sys, Feyerabend {eels ao hesitancy about defending “Protagoresnrlaiem” elt ng tha such relativism i "reasonable because it pays attention to the plural of alitons and values” «pluralism that includes Reaon as merely one smong many different edions and ss having "ae amc (or lite lam to the enue of the stage a any othet ‘radon. We wil look closely, In pare athe work of Kun and Feyerabend, andthe interpretation of thelr werk, to we hove conto- ‘eries concerning felatvim which originally focored on moral, ‘bea and poll fates have now spresd 1 Our very uaderstand Ingo the “herd core" of sense knowledge. But ow are we to secoun forthe tngled controversies that have own up between objectvst and ratvsst Why I It chat today ‘erations of this opposidn seem to turn up almost everywhere? ‘Why have relaivists been unconvinced when abectivists agus 5 {hey almost invanably do that flats is selfreferentaly incon siren sell-dleating and incoherent?" Why ave objecuvits been ‘unmoved when time and die agai itis shown that chey have failed tomake the cae forthe objetive foundations for plosophy, know geo langage, on that the history of attempts to reveal such foundations most be edged ts far tobe a history of ales? "We anght try to answer these qustons ln a waziety of ways Perhaps despite the selfandesstanding of many philosophers chat they a th dlenter of rational argument dhe pesiions they ake Se ifuenced moe by socal pacino ete of terperamen and other nonrational factors han de arguments upon ‘hich they place so much emphasis. Perhaps, despite grand lates “bout cleat und divtinct ides, transendentsl pron, concept ‘neces, philosophy never has been and never vl Be more than 4 shifting bateground of competing opinions. But even i we are16 beyand Obecuvem end Reloswiam Aubious about what can end cannot be achieved by pllovophic apse fuentation, this does aotielp us to uadestad why the controversies Between cbjectivists and relatives have become so perasive dominant today, or why so much passionate enecey an polemic are fxhibited in these deen or why Wels fe that the choice is such a “feed and "momentout” one. ‘THE CARTESIAN ANXIETY ‘Wie can begin to answer these questions by concentating om what Shall eall he "Cavestan Ane." Tdo not want to suggest tha his Srvdety begins with Descetes or even that thinker alter Deserts Ihave accetel ei the frm in hich i found im his work Tb speak ofthe Cartesian Ansiesy isto speak of «construct, but one ‘Batis helpful or geting pon the pelmary esues ‘Descartes’ Mecitotion isthe locus clasicu in moder pos phy forthe metaphor ofthe “foundation” and fr de conviction hat the philosophers questi to search for an Archimedean paint Upon which we ean ground our knowledge The opening o the ist ‘Meditation iwoduces the metephon Js pow ome ya cic ese ow many web bl a ‘hing be tee consucted on ths bast an om ha tine Las canned ‘hati nae one for al coociy under oo spel ofall te opens ‘leh Th ore scepe, fd commence 0 bul ae fom te ou ‘on we ety i sod prune ere ‘And inthe second Meditation Descartes els thst ‘Archiras inorier hath ight dn the terial abe st ol ‘Sy emg chowder Catmnael ony Gn ne pe hold Bee fd lmeentl athe sen way sal hae tbe et once ih Fpsiltasjy enough to dacovr one thing oly which cera sid pelle haor tngealy ‘We know that Descartes calmed to have discovered something hat oul sve a foundation pon which we could construct a "em Sd permanent strcture inthe slences"Ie i less clear what is he ‘Archimedean pls in Descartes plosophy—wheter its the crgto fr God hiel. “The Meditations ha ben read ab the ret rationalist eatise of 17 An oversene modem times, ts potentially radical imlistios hae inspired many ‘because of Deearter demand that we shoud no zely on founded ‘pions refuses, aston, or external authority, but ony upon ‘he auchonty a season fate Fw povoper since Descartes ‘scceped his substantive claim, but there can be ile doubt the problems, metaphors, and questions that he bequeathed to us Ihave been atthe very center of philosophy sine Descares—prab- Teme concerning the foundasons of kaowiedge and the sciences, ‘mind-body dualism, our knowledge ofthe “exteraal” word, how the mind “represents” thie world the mature of conseoutses, {inlg, and wal, whether physical rest iso be derstood 384 ‘gad mechanism, and how this compattle with numan Weedon. ‘hllosophers have been primarily concerned with the precise chat cer and copency of Deseares arguments ‘Bue another pervasive theme fn the Ndtaion,aleboogh i is seldom dretiy adaresed by profesional phlosophers, has «peter {elevance for clarifying what! mean bythe Cutesian Amey. The Meditations yoraay «journey ofthe sul meditative flection oa Tnuman Gate tzough which ve gradually deepen oar nderrand. ing of what i elly means to be lmited, nie creatures wha sre completely dependent on an all-powerful, beneficent, perfect Infae God. If we practice these spinal exercises eumestly at ‘eseares urges usc do, i we follow the pecaious saps of tit journey without losing our way, then we discover that tise four Dey tat io a once terying sn liberating, clminating in te clea ‘essurance that although we are emineaty fallible and subject to El sors of contingencies, we can tet secure i the deepened elt fnowlege that we ae costs of beefcent God who has exeated ‘usin his image. The trying quality ofthe journey ie reflected in the allusion to madness, dans, the dread of waking rom ssl deceptive dear Would, the fear of having “all ofa sues allen into ‘ery deep water” where “teen neither make certain of etting feet on the botom, nor can I swirn and 30 support mysel on tbe surface," and the anxiety of imagining that maybe nothing more than a plaything ofan all powerful evil demon But the more pabe ‘ny fntude and realize how completely cepeent Tara ona bene Bclent Cod, fx he suraing me at every moment of my existence, fhe more {canbe liberated rom this dred, fea, and ant. eis & Spntul journey et culminates with the assurance that Lean sod cought to fetes al he dubs of these past days os hypeclaand cls; Be Secae CNB Pate ls aca nds18 Beyond Objectivism and Releweim ‘mths Bat because the exigencies of ction oe ake Fins beef lana caer ne i to made or SjeRE ol mae ere feaentysabeero ener nee ane 3 and we moet in the ead achnowedge he infemsfad oo eee cling he Mako ay «juny ofthe st hele ws wo seit tat Descartes ors den seine ig moe than «dence a sae utp ae a Galles isthe qu for sme Seed oss me ‘om which we can sete gr les sping ay ec Spaganly ewe ti pn the ee fs ny is ota prema eh sheaf tnines and cane whe nate Se ae ‘ether each Dott nor suppor oul ote Soho Wey ‘Spor fr ot ng at edie Bee ha some ieee ee ist enc ae shee an mont cicero eres al ‘ave claimed that hee as idden menage rca ee wae donc at athe wey ante caine seca me Sige donor inet ptt ae Sc ty fina ie eer mcg sine hers 1 oven and mares Desaree oe age olen pln a gue sae, ts Sm ‘onion menor taco tel ene noe ee stig ov my al ana Pei foun ofthe contre Yee aS ‘teed ad ene eeamzenmeasane tr vik an Sees Sucgoe fans Renee om ——— a eke nd otc ea a toon case apace aes lit Saige nc Fa ‘We hae now not merely explore the tetry of pure unstained atl stoped emy pat of br hae So etre ae so ‘Sted fo ctiyeing in signal paces Sosa oe wieeh foclosed by nate sel wits untested ef ae ‘pehanngotoe—ancuned bys wis aed sonny ore te sah fasion whee many soy bak and muy a sily acre ae cep spcaane al Ber hres ding hare tt never abandon snd et enable tocaay come | 19 An Overiow Ae ht ca ey ride steel ce ear Rapa theme amine embry gcasenareiredaa, tet In epomewccmashur Senet ces eos sbaus Seine a eso eter opti oiaely inci samme Sree teem « Buliieieteshes tate Sparen ira cmiatetna canes Sones nan a ea earn sericea sates Sera pny arom gt syrcthienla ache vege Suetiemecateasucace: Sips ienaeeay onto as san feieca donee ae Fearon oan uaa ihe ies aaa eee Sees sme btasaane ee aiiee mete maa Spies siietace Tenant eee et ond dts seictcee nel Fume gposeapee oes EN sence aoe Eee ei neatnireenaet20 seyond Objectivism end Relates, objectvim and relavisma Where isthe evidence tht such «move sat sally taking place! What ze the congequenoce of thie as formasion for theory and practice fr thought sad scion? Im order to begin to specify more concretely tal io answer these questions, Jex me biel review some ofthe resent plorophic contovesiey that I willbe exazining in greater deal latr on in hiebook, and suggest some ofthe ways in whick dey ae intimately elated POSTEMPIRICIST PHILOSOPHY AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE ‘mn what initially eppeat tobe quit leprae contexts, controversies Inne broken ou abou the mesning, aut, and scape of aonality ‘But why is thee prcblem here! We have to tecopnise that we do te the expression “atonal” to characterize blll, arguments, ctions agents, societies, theoies, and even philosophic postions So the question arses, dacs the ute of “atonal” in these disprste ‘eatets havea univoal meaning Is there something ke snalogieal ‘eaning in these diferen exo the txm! ete sitaton hese one family resemblances? Oris there rome other way of expliating ‘he meaning ofthe word Some philosophers have arued that the only clear sense of ‘ational I applicable to argument and that what i bean stat the acguments conform to logical canons. But sucha severe restric tlon doesnot help ws to understand what appe to be other legit ‘ate uses of saional.” Tor example, we frequently think of scence, especially natural scence as avationl form of eondict When we $5) this, we mean more than cha selene costs of ergunent that ‘enform to the canons oflogial reasoning, Bot the rel difculy {aod obscuity| begins when sre try to spent precisely what the “more” that I6 intended. In rocent debates, ianuce concerning the ‘meaning and scope of aonality have become even more complex ‘nd tanged because of the conviction that there sre ineommensst ‘ble paradigms, language games, o forms of Iie ‘hthe pilosophy of uke natural ectences, thes issues have been in th foreground of eestion since the publication of Thontae Kuha's ‘he Stucture of Scientific Revaltions in 1962. Viewing this book {nis historical context, iis now cleat that many af Kalas conto ‘eral thes that seemed sofeesh and orginal had been antiipated byothers This doesnt diminish the significance or the impact that, 21 An overview 1s monosah had and continues o bre helps to explain ‘ha ave expesin to sed helped o deny feet we roping tom a wide variety of source esa if Kahn ad used ‘coe imac ner ade woul be teat one nee feck pbs in the at fw Scns that bs btn tance so Site a povcatefv ines noe cer dace ‘nds persisetl stacked nd ertzed, quent om entice tet perceives. Kun even seat sat ook "at of he reason for its succes iI rely conclu, ta ah 9 tee ‘ent all ings al people ™ ul argued that tee something fundamentally woo 08 askew withthe image or concep of selnce tat ha ben abo ‘sted by most mansteam or “ortho” phlsephers sence a oncepion tha was el & Bending of Seepy eatenched {nherted rom wadtonal empicsmandsatonsin Heats toaketch an aerative “nage of sence” which he Claimed di fat ‘Beater fstie tothe way which scleningly i ataly Eonducted. The type pater of Gevlopment tha he ouines an be divide ino « series of stages. I begos wich «preparadigaatie stage where thee ib ite or no agreement abut sublet mater robles, and procedares among competing "echocls” This shoal Phenomenon ollowedby the emergence snd accepzce odo fare pastigm by sleet “universally secpasel scenic ‘hievement tha forte provide moe! piesa solitons {oa community of pcttanes™ Piss bu "na wena? 2 ype ct “purl saving” tarugh which he dominant pags taal moe determinate nd pssce ti spled to now pom fa The putt af normal Scene, wth Inrestngopesbety fd precision, les tothe dosovey of iactepancis a oomacs that resist solution. Altbough the "Rene sparen and Soar” is never pester are alway sone dceponctes at {he radigm canon explain tage ay be seabed sich he its mowing sone of ens questioning abut the aeqcy of he ‘ay peradigm that har guided somal ace The Be wage ‘when “exeaordinary sieee” begins and when Hal paradigms af ‘oposed, Seems donot jest sbandn dominne pri, tre when acne dae coed Wha es {Sean anomaly or problem tha esate ston may torn ot ‘only an ebtacl thar con br osrsme angina wathout ‘andoning the prevaig padi, This i one feson why Haha ‘Binks he pea wo falsiation on be wo misesding re that ‘ay sppet fo aay an exatang prin theory ay turn ot fo ‘be aceounted for by adjusting or modifying the pratigm without