John,
I have not read these authors so the discussion would all be coming from your side. In fact, it wouldn't be a discussion if that were the case--although I might be able to comment on the concepts derived from those authors
My original intention here was only to defend Bachmann from being labeled a "nutjob". And not to get into an extended discourse on the relativistic aspects of political cultures.
I asserted, essentially, with reference to Bachman, that a "nutjob" application only has reference in relation to normative values--what the norm is for that politician's cultural value set (otherwise one man's "nutjob" is another man's wise philosopher).
Cogito and Pangloss argued, if I understood them correctly, that it wasn't a matter of relative values at all inasmuch some of Bachmann's values/ideas were out of sync with scientific "reality". Therefore, scientific values/reality were a more valid standard to judge Bachmann by, ergo, she's a nutjob.
I countered with the argument that scientific values only have validity for humans in so far as they have been adopted by human culture and that at present, here in the US, there are differing cultural norms that are competing for ascendency. So until science has completed its ascendency (as THE cultural norm, if it ever does, there will always be a relativistic value set on which to judge politicians by.
That's the state of the argument as I see it. I really don't want to go into the particulars of Palin and/or Gay marriage unless the thrust of those particulars go to the central tenet of the argument. In fact, since both the issues of Palin and
Gay Marriage carry so much emotional baggage attached to them it would be better, IMHO, to not use those subjects, if possible, in relation to political cultural "norms". If we could limit it to Bachmann that would be preferable to me.
Now in the thrust of the recap of the argument I've laid out where do you want to go from there? |
