Someone wrote to me about
> That positivistic ideal of the multiple sciences is today dominating al climate in the name of the euphemism of "pluralism".
To put it in a picture. You may know the old saying (I think it comes from Buddhists origins):
Some blind men discover an elephant: one holds its tail, another one his teeth, one his leg, may be one hold his ear and one his trunk.
All of them are arguing against each other that they know how an elephant looks (? better feels ;-)) like. And that the other must be wrong as their theories are obviously contradicting the experience they feel their own.
This saying seems(!) to imply "be wise, in everything may be a grain or more of truth". So it is silly to argue against each others experience when they are true, no lies.
That's probably the basic reason for our Pluralism, which is a basic value of our modern/western society, as you know.
However if you really take this further, then there must also be some truth in the non-pluralistic theory.
(Because when you tolerate every theory because it may have some truth in it than you have also apply this to non-pluralism).
(Hint: negation of the position).
It is the sense for that there is only one truth and that it can't allow self contradictions.
That's a valid statement, our science is build on that one.
Problems come when you start denying all what's not in accordance to your theory.
Because, that way, you don't get it really out of the way, you may only get peace for your self in a psychological, not in a philosophical way.
So any dogmatic position (may it be religious, political, psychological or any other) is in that way also not in accordance to the nature of truth.
(hint: negation of the negation)
Of course the solution is simple:
Find out what an elephant (to speak in the language of our example) really is, and you will also know how all the different facets which seemed to contradict each other fit into the picture.
Then you have the synthesis of the truth both in the concepts of "Pluralism" and "One truth".
Of course this result it self may be the start of a new turn (more facettes which don't apply to the new theory will get us to find a bigger synthesis etc).
Our time lays (probably rightly after the rigid experiences with the "One truth" concept they had in the past, both in religious and political areas) an emphasis on the Pluralistic aspect.
I'd like to help to make the synthesis happen, our time might really need it.
[ >Kais Hegel-Werkstatt< ]