Journal of Value Inquiry 26 (3):395-407 (1992)
It may seem to their opponents that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Postmodernists admit that their own paradigm must be and will be placed into question by future thinkers. But if they can anticipate an eventual reaffirmation of their paradoxical stand in an ongoing oscillating debate, then cannot it be said that they have arrived at a truth that transcends their time and place in history? And, if so, is not their fallibilist stance in fact self-referentially inconsistent? The response of postmodernists is the claim that each reaffirmation of a fallibilist epistemology and ethics throughout history is in fact sui generis. And this is the case because each reaffirmation has its own unique context within which it is made. Modernists will of course argue that these contextual differences are nonessential and irrelevant. And the debate over the problem of the One and the Many is once again launched in a new context. Thus far from running away from the paradoxical position that what they assert is both true and false, postmodernists revel in such inconsistencies.But does not such an ethical stance resemble the Sisyphean nightmare of being condemned to roll a heavy stone up a cliff only to have it keep falling back to the bottom ad infinitum? If no decision is innocent of doing some harm in the world, why should we bother to play the moral game at all? Indeed, what possible help is a postmodernist ethics when it comes to making some of the complex and crucial decisions we face today if it refuses to say anything substantial beyond the recommendations that we be cautious and balanced?And the postmodernist can only reply that we are letting our neurotic need for solid foundations frighten us. For ethics is an art not a science. There are no absolute rules. If we do not like the way the game is set up, then we are simply revealing our ultimate hubris in the face of a mystery requiring deep humility
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
The Alleged Relativism of Isaiah Berlin.Ferrell Jason - 2008 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (1):41-56.
Isaiah Berlin: Liberalism and Pluralism in Theory and Practice.Jason Ferrell - 2009 - Contemporary Political Theory 8 (3):295-316.
Similar books and articles
The Book of Isaiah: Personal Impressions of Isaiah Berlin.Henry Hardy (ed.) - 2009 - In Association with Wolfson College.
Religion, Metaphysics, and the Postmodern: William Desmond and John D. Caputo.Christopher Ben Simpson - 2009 - Indiana University Press.
Essays on J. L. Austin By Sir Isaiah Berlin, L. W. Forguson, D. F. Pears, G. Pitcher, J. R. Searle, P. F. Strawson and G. J. Warnock Clarendon Press, 1973, 190 Pp. £3.00. [REVIEW]Jane Heal - 1974 - Philosophy 49 (188):219-.
Isaiah Berlin: A Celebration.Isaiah Berlin, Edna Ullmann-Margalit & Avishai Margalit (eds.) - 1991 - University of Chicago Press.
The Place of Phronesis in Postmodern Hermeneutics.Shaun Gallagher - 1993 - Philosophy Today 37 (3):298-305.
Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas.Isaiah Berlin - 1997 - Princeton University Press.
Pluralism Without Relativism: Remembering Sir Isaiah Berlin.Isaiah Berlin, João Carlos Espada, Marc F. Plattner & Adam Wolfson (eds.) - 2001 - Lexington Books.
Reply to Ronald H. McKinney, “Towards a Postmodern Ethics: Sir Isaiah Berlin and John Caputo”. [REVIEW]Isaiah Berlin - 1992 - Journal of Value Inquiry 26 (4):557-560.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #455,048 of 2,153,472 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #399,080 of 2,153,472 )
How can I increase my downloads?