»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Rorty and his Consequences
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Rorty and his Consequences |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is a review of a book I mentioned earlier, "Rorty and his Critics": http://www.thenewrepublic.com/082001/blackburn082001_print.html Needless to say, I disagree this Blackburn's assessment. Here's an excerpt: "If you visit a mighty good school, you might find some big words written over the gate: words such as Truth, Reason, Knowledge, Understanding, or even Wisdom. If the school is old enough and in another country, you might even find a mention of God, though this word may now be an embarrassment, or regarded as purely decorative, or if the word was once there, perhaps it has been erased and something secular substituted. But nobody would want to erase Truth, Reason, and the rest, would they? Richard Rorty would." [This message has been edited by Brad (edited 09-04-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay...I'm back from the show.  (It was great by the way, I think everyone should dance with a red feather boa at least once in their lives...)And I've read the aforementioned review and bookmarked it for when my ears stop ringing...but was curious, Brad. Is the excerpt you quoted ALL that you disagreed with? hmmm....sign me, still curious... (serenity exits...sans leather...  ) |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Good God, no. I give introductory quotes when I do this just to entice people to read the whole thing. I agree with the part I quoted by the way. Glad you had a good time at the show. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
sans leather -- good grief why??? Read the review (about half of it) but haven't read Rorty -- so I'm hesitant to engage the rubarb without that knowledge -- but assuming Brandom has rendered an 'objective' synopsis I will say langauge is not a Darwinian defense mechanism -- Language originated as a way for women to 'gossip' about what went on in the clan while the men were away hunting -- so that if someone was sleeping with someone they shouldn't the mother-in-law could report it to her son. (according to the best anthropologists I've read) I will agree though that language is a way to exclude 'the new kid on the block' and has been used that way for millenia -- the shiboleth comes to mind -- technical jargon inside specific industries is designed largely to weed out the unwashed -- I also read an excellent essay on the topic of abortion wherein the writer claims the debate cannot go forward because of the language chosen to discuss it -- wish I could find it again -- thought I had it bookmarked... anyway -- intersting topic Brad but I'm curious about what direction you wanted to shepard the conversation? did you want to focus on words such as 'truth' being held in regard as a deity? [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 09-04-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, I disagree with the view on Rorty but I still thought it covered the 'hot spots' of the last ten years or so pretty well (from the opposite point of view). He does talk about Fish and Sokal and I thought it might tie in nicely with the thread on tolerance. I could show quotes from the book that show how wrong his reading of Rorty is but unless somebody else reads the book, I don't see any value in it. In a way, I guess I was just trying to give a little more context to the tolerance thread. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
yeah I just wish I was better read in this area -- I've been rightly accused of ignoring post-modernism -- but not totally -- I guess I just find it pretty irrelevant in a world that's still imbued in fundamentalism. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, Rorty's continuing analogy to give up TRUTH and REASON (as opposed to the tools we use to arrive at these things) is usually theological. Questions about TRUTH as correspondance to reality should go the way of the certainty of one's salvation and epistemology should go the way of demonology, but those still are very real and important things to a lot of people. I've read some religious articles that say many postmodern thinkers are potential allies. I'm pretty sure I see their point but there's gotta be something funny about those who want to discuss absolutes and those who stress the contingency of our thought as buddies. I guess the question really revolves around how persuasive, "God told me to do it," is these days when it comes to what people actually do and how persuasive "It's the objective truth" is in the same way. A Pragmatist argues for neither. A Pragmatist asks, "Does it work?" Brad |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
