Alex:
>
> Hrm... Sounds like I'm being set of as the scapegoat in a Weinandrian
> Against Relativism HQ of some sort. ;-)
I have a book titled Against Relativism at home. Want to
borrow it? :-)
Seriously, and for the record, I'm all for relativism on the
"inside Glorantha" level, while I don't see it as a necessity
on the "looking in from the outside" perspective.
Which leads me away from relativism to:
>- -.. which gets me back to where we came in, namely 'the same in
>what sense?' To say that (for example) 'Orlanth and Shargash
>are the same' is true in one sense, and false in another (if not,
>several others), regardless of the 'objectivity' of the truth-
>judgements involved.
I can see several definitions:
- Simply defing that entity A and entity B _are_ the same
behind all masks.
- "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and tastes
like a duck it most likely is a duck."
- Entiy A shares aspect X and aspect Y with entity B, but
not aspect Z. That makes them quite similar. With proper
definitions of entity and aspect of course.
- In some cases I'm sure you can't conclude anything worthwhile.
I'm not prepared to throw out the other cases just because
of this though. I assume that such extreme measures wasn't
what you intended either.
Nils Weinander
The world is a beautiful place and it's worth fighting for
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com