Here is the opening of Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, pp 25-26, 1986. (My emphasis.) For “openness”, you may substitute “non-discrimination”.
There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative. If this belief is put to the test, one can count on the students’ reaction: they will be uncomprehending. That anyone should regard the proposition as not self-evident astonishes them, as though he were calling into question 2 + 2 = 4. These are things you don’t think about. The students’ backgrounds are as various as America can provide. Some are religious, some atheists; some are to the Left, some to the Right; some intend to be scientists, some humanists or professionals or businessmen; some are poor, some rich. They are unified only in their relativism and in their allegiance to equality. And the two are related in a moral intention. The relativity of truth is not a theoretical insight but a moral postulate, the condition of a free society, or so they see it. They have all been equipped with this framework early on, and it is the modern replacement for the inalienable natural rights that used to be the traditional American grounds for a free society. That it is a moral issue for students is revealed by the character of their response when challenged — a combination of disbelief and indignation: “Are you an absolutist?,’ the only alternative they know, uttered in the same tone as “Are you a monarchist?’ or “Do you really believe in witches?’ This latter leads into indignation, for someone who believes in witches might well be a witch-hunter or a Salem judge. The danger they have been taught to fear from absolutism is not error but intolerance. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness ”“ and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and various ways of life and kinds of human beings ”“ is the great insight of our times. The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think you are right at all.
The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion.
This book, given to me as a gift a year or two after it came out, was my ‘red pill’. Further, painful rounds of memetic chemotherapy lay ahead, but for me, this is where it began.
3 Comments
One of my favorites. I read it and marked it up and loaned it to my sister-in-law and have never seen it since. I have since purchased another copy for my library. A very important book, and if I do any writing on social issues one of the references.
But look — here again is the conflation of skepticism and relativism. The skeptic believes the truth of the matter can’t be known or else that he can’t or doesn’t know it; the relativist believes there is no truth of the matter, or that the truth of the matter is determined by various local conditions. It’s important not to confuse these two, because while it’s very easy to refute relativism, it’s not easy to refute skepticism (the history of philosophy bears this out); further, it is a philosophical sleight of hand, and a very irresponsible one at that, to either claim or as is more usual imply one has defeated skepticism by arguing against relativism. Relativism is easy to argue against, because it’s often incoherent, but skepticism dies hard…
Yes, Alex, there is a distinction being lost here between ontology and epistemology. Good fodder for a post, when I have a little more time.