Rejecting the supremacy of any one culture does not imply that all cultures are equal, but that such comparisons are invalid.
One shifts from an argument to a negotiation. Negotiations do not require epistemic consensus. Both parties can remain different.
relativism does not prevent us from making assertions; it only changes how we understand “what it is that we are doing” when we make assertions.
No social reform or revolution will bring us to an equilibrium prescribed by some essential human nature.
When we say that something is good or evil, we are not making a truth-claim; instead, we are speaking performatively.
The universe runs on causality, not morality. Explaining the cause of an event and assigning moral blame are different, often opposed, activities.
What matters more: social oppression or personal virtue?
Just finished reading Marx, Marginalism, and Modern Sociology by Simon Clarke (MacMillan, 1982). It’s flawed but interesting.
Radical sinks draw energies from unequal social relations without changing those relations. They give rise to extrinsic motivations for radical action. Radical praxis draws energies from unequal social relations and uses it transformatively. It involves motivations intrinsic to radical projects.
We can define radicalism not by its conspicuous oppositionalism or militancy, but by its effort to intentionally transform social systems. The radical Left is a loose constellation of attempts to achieve maximal human freedom and equality through intentional social-systemic transformation. Any process which draws energy from that trajectory without returning it can be considered in terms analogous to a thermodynamic sink.
Single-dialectic thinking, despite its merits, has limitations which give rise to some self-defeating intellectual habits. Tangled-systems thinking could overcome those limitations.