How is that academics practicing in a hermeneutic milieu also find themselves passing judgment on historical figures for things we currently find immoral? If hermeneutics has to do with “positioned” knowledge, then why this laundering of history? Why judge the past from the present?
A similar problem: that these academics would probably say morals are a choice, and local. Yet they interrogate the past for problematics using a “universal” rubric, as though everyone in the past “should have known better.”
Why do relativists insist on their views? Does their action foreclose the validity of what they say? How can a relativist try convince you they have the better view? Aren’t they beating you with foam hammers?
gestalt music studio 
Leave a comment