Rorty super polémico

"But the pragmatist,dominated by the desire for solidarity,can only be criticized for taking his own community too seriously. He can only be criticized for ethnocentrism, not for relativism. To be ethnocentric is to divide the human race into the people to whom one must justify one's beliefs and the others. The first group-one's ethnos-comprises those who share enough of one's beliefs to make fruitful conversation possible". PP1,SO,p.30 e em nota"(...)Bernard Williams makes a similar point in terms of a distinction between "genuine confrontation" and "notional confrontation". The latter is the sort of confrontation which occurs, assymmetrically,between us and primitive tribespeople. The belief-systems of such people do not present, as Williams puts it, "real options" for us, for we cannot imagine going over to their view without "self-deception or paranoia". These are the people whose beliefs on certain topics overlap so little with ours that their inability to agree with us raises no doubt in our minds about the correctness of our own beliefs. (...)So I would hold that there is no truth in relativism, but this much truth in ethnocentrism: we cannot justify our beliefs(...) to everybody, but only to those whose beliefs overlap ours to some appropriate extent. (This is not a theoretical problem about "untranslatability", but simply a practical problem about the limitations of argument; it is not that we live in different worlds than the Nazis or the Amazonians,but that conversion from or to their point of view,though possible,will not be a matter of inference from previously shared premisses.)"