I literally was staring at the blog question for a straight hour. Besides the fact that my brain is not functioning (as usual), I just needed to read the question over and over so that I could comprehend the pieces of the question step by step. Ahhh it still hurts my brain. This is so hard, but I will try.
So there are three questions:
1. If we consider knowledge of effects, does "difference with equality" lose its moral force as an ideal?
2. Should we be looking instead to eliminate inaccuracies in favor of better-supported empirical claims?
3. Is that process itself a reassertion of the kinds of hierarchies that Todorov argues that we need to call into question?
1.
First of all (unfortunately), I finally realized that the three axes introduced by Todorov were more written equivalent than in terms of increasing (developing) levels. I think I was getting a little bit confused because I have related these axes with one of Todorov's quotes which was in ascending order of levels. As I was reflecting the past classes and this blog question, I now have a thought that the three axes presented by Todorov is more of different types and rage of thinking, instead of thinking as hierarchies. As I go back and read the quote again, I do not think he is talking about equity or inferiority (I am not saying that the thought of the three axes representing the hierarchy is incorrect... I just thought this is another way of examining his three axes... ahhh I do not know). Okay, back to the first question: what is "difference with equality"? what is "lose its moral force as an ideal"? I think "difference in equality" lose its moral force as an ideal if we consider the knowledge of effects (such as the three axes by Todorov), because now we have the perception that "knowledge of effects" is not in terms of superiority, but another "way of thinking".
2.
For the second question, I think the answer is No. This was what we have exactly discussed during the simulation on Monday. Containing an inaccurate term within a claim will give nations or people more variety in terms of understanding; which will allow different ways of thinking. Therefore, in order to avoid this situation, I think we should eliminate any inaccurate terms. However, it is also significant at the same time to not eliminate too many terms, because that will end up with a broad and vague claim. Adding a single term will open up different possibilities for people because of the variety in the interpretations. United Nations, for an example, includes some vague terms so that the majority can agree and can pass the resolution.
3.
In conclusion, if I have the mindset that this "difference in equality" allows more opportunities to think and there are just another way of thinking, I do not think the argument of Todorov is reasserting the kind of hierarchy. Of course I cannot argue that there is absolutely not inferiority within the three axes. I can definitely see the ascending level. However, if we think about the terms of effect when we think according to the three different axes, I think we can say it is not about inferiority anymore, but just different types and fields of knowledge.
I really do not have any confidence in this blog post; which is sad, because it was our last substantive post... but I will keep thinking about this topic; until it will not hurt my brain anymore.
I really appreciate how you structured this post- by splitting up the question and separately answering I was definitely more able to understand your point of view. I agree that by returning to the three axes in a different context we can better understand all the ways that they can be applied to different interactions and experiences. I think your point of "difference in equality" being an additional axes or way of thinking explores a different level of the question. It is interesting to think of another process that combines epistemic and axiological. With this, do you think it could be applied as universally as the other axes?
ReplyDeleteI really like the way that you described the axis. I just want to offer another step in the direction that your analysis was going in. My visualization of the three axis prior to reading your blog post was a strict pyramid scheme, but now I begin to view the axis as three circles that all exist on the same plane and can overlap with each other and shrink or expand depending on the situation. This type of visualization works out a lot better on case studies than the pyramid scheme does.
ReplyDelete