In debates about the philosophy of ethics, it's not unusual to see a philosopher's personal character brought up in a debate about their ideas. But this is a de

In debates about the philosophy of ethics, it's not unusual to see a philosopher's personal character brought up in a debate about their ideas. But this is a debate about epistemology! Morris ties relativism to the idea about there being two (philosophical) Kuhns, then to there being two (temperamental) Kuhns. Morris must have spent years thinking, "I know my advisor's theory is wrong. I must come up with the next theory to replace it." That's what grad school teaches you to do. (I'm still doing it.) When the prevailing theory denies the existence of universal truth, you can't attack the theory from within itself. You have to step outside it somehow. Is attacking Kuhn's temperament the plan? Did Morris sit down and say, there's no rational way to attack this theory, so I'm going to make this fallacious argument about Kuhn's character, presented in a compelling movie? Using post-truth tactics to defend objective truth?