100 ROR 2

‘The notion that we are faced by a challenge to fill this lacuna is one more result of hypostatizing the Platonic focus imaginarius - truth as disjointed from agreement - and allowing the gap between oneself and that unconditional ideal to make one feel that one does not yet understand the conditions of one’s existence.’

I have to give respect to Rorty for contextualising the reasons why the philosophy of language came about, my professor didn’t even come close to situating the importance of the entire field’s relation to the Kantian project and the subsequent failure of the transcendental subject causing analytics to need to reach outside of the subject itself into something external that could possess Truth. My view of the subject as being the quintessential example of useless mental masturbation going on unhindered in faculty rooms around the globe proved to be quite wrong.

However, apart from this one point, I do have to say that for a book of such specificity (bordering on tedium for large sections) the work seems to me to remain incomplete. Now I do not mean this in the sense that Rorty does not carry through this work to a satisfying conclusion, everything he writes from the beginning to the end ties up in a nice little bow, but that the very content itself in its passing over of Dewey, Wittgenstein and Heidegger (the book’s three key cited influences) prevents the work from being, in my eyes, truly great. It’s as if there is some gaping wound in the work itself - we are merely shown how other people utilise the works of these three figures but are never really taken on a Rorty-guided tour through their own individual tomes. On an odd occasion there may be an extended quote by one of them, but the majority of the time you’re spent staring at arguments by the likes of Davidson, Putnam, Sellars etc. who have carried on this tradition (and of course split from it in very significant ways). By the time you’ve got through the umpteenth discussion where it splits hairs on some subtle issue within epistemology itself (I’m willing to concede that on many points I couldn’t feel the importance of these discussions; to me it was as if these digressions physically popped out of the book itself and began chewing away at it as I held it before me, the enthusiasm I had started out with quickly dissipated as I came to realise that I still had a couple of hundred pages left to go) you feel like you’ve been cheated. Perhaps this can all be chalked up to the inaccurate expectations I myself held regarding this book. For what it’s worth I still enjoyed the book, I even share some of Rorty’s intuitions regarding philosophy, but for a book that places such emphasis on these reactive abnormal forefathers, why aren’t we told more about them? They are relegated to passing mentions by Rorty, readers are even directed by Rorty in footnotes to search out these all-important essays for themselves (they should have been appendix pieces at the very least).

I’ll probably come back to this book in a couple of years time and give myself a big smack on the knuckles for my insolence regarding this one point, but hey who gives a fuck? ( )

12/11/21

This is an essay which anybody who has ever regaled a professional philosopher should read. It will make you snort with laughter as Rorty tells you exactly how it is, these guys in their glass castles having obscure debates about nothing that matters, when we all know that philosophy is about the things that do matter. Well, it should be anyway, right? It's lost its way, it used to be vital, now it's irrelevant. We all know it except the professional philosophers and you have to wonder why they are so thick that they don't get it.

So, there you are, chortling away, thinking how hilarious Rorty is, and how brilliantly he has captured what makes you right and them wrong, when at some point you start thinking you didn't laugh at all on that page and you turn and, well, you don't laugh on this one either,

Rest here:

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/the-philosopher-as-expert-... ( )

This is an essay which anybody who has ever regaled a professional philosopher should read. It will make you snort with laughter as Rorty tells you exactly how it is, these guys in their glass castles having obscure debates about nothing that matters, when we all know that philosophy is about the things that do matter. Well, it should be anyway, right? It's lost its way, it used to be vital, now it's irrelevant. We all know it except the professional philosophers and you have to wonder why they are so thick that they don't get it.

So, there you are, chortling away, thinking how hilarious Rorty is, and how brilliantly he has captured what makes you right and them wrong, when at some point you start thinking you didn't laugh at all on that page and you turn and, well, you don't laugh on this one either,

Rest here:

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/the-philosopher-as-expert-... ( )

This is an essay which anybody who has ever regaled a professional philosopher should read. It will make you snort with laughter as Rorty tells you exactly how it is, these guys in their glass castles having obscure debates about nothing that matters, when we all know that philosophy is about the things that do matter. Well, it should be anyway, right? It's lost its way, it used to be vital, now it's irrelevant. We all know it except the professional philosophers and you have to wonder why they are so thick that they don't get it.

So, there you are, chortling away, thinking how hilarious Rorty is, and how brilliantly he has captured what makes you right and them wrong, when at some point you start thinking you didn't laugh at all on that page and you turn and, well, you don't laugh on this one either,

Rest here:

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpress.com/2014/10/02/the-philosopher-as-expert-... ( )

I am glad I read most of Rorty's other books before reading this one. Even now, I understand little of the the philosophical disputes that shape this book--analytical philosophy, language philosophy/philosophy of language, the "linguistic turn". ( )

"Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" is Richard Rorty's magnum opus, his manifesto for a new philosophy and a new philosophical language. Taking aim at some thousands of years of philosophical tradition, Rorty argues that the concept of representation ought to be given up entirely, and with it all epistemology and all metaphysics.

A big part of the book consists of a very in-depth discussion of the traditions in epistemology and metaphysics (including ontology), and where the idea of the point of epistemology comes from in the first place. Our intuitions of our minds as "Mirrors of Nature", reflecting the Real out there in whatever imperfect way it impresses itself upon us, are traced by Rorty to the Cartesian revolution in philosophy. The whole ensemble of philosophical thought from Descartes (but inspired already by Plato), via Locke, Spinoza, Kant all the way to Frege, Russell and the early Wittgenstein and modern "analytical philosophy" is to blame for this popular view, but Rorty launches a convincing and masterfully written attack on precisely this view. Epistemology, the 'linguistic turn', ontology, and so on, Rorty argues, have never given an adequate answer to what it means exactly to say that an idea or meaning "represents" reality, nor how we would know this; and, what's worse, the problem itself is really a non-problem, since we can simply do entirely without talk in terms of truth and representation, and we will be just as able to solve the problems confronting us in daily life.

Much of the book is particularly focused on attacking the concept that the linguistic turn in philosophy has provided or can provide us with a better 'foundation for truth' than earlier attempts (Kant, Hegel, etc.). This is a highly abstract and technical discussion, where Rorty relies strongly on the counter-tradition of Quine, Sellars, and the late Wittgenstein. Thorough knowledge of all these writers and the issues in philosophy of language are required to understand this, though if you do, it is very rewarding.

Rorty subsequently goes on from his conclusions on the redundancy of the linguistic turn to found on this a general "pragmatist" approach to philosophy. Working with Davidson's concept that a majority of things we know cannot be false (since our concepts of true and false rely on context), as well as Dewey's dictum that whatever is not a problem in reality cannot be a problem in philosophy, he passionately and intelligently shows that we can do without ANY foundation for truth at all. Moreover, this also entails that the special position of philosophy as guardian of 'truth' or 'rationality' or the 'a priori synthetic' or other ways to formulate the "permitted ways of talking" disappears entirely, hopefully ending these philosophers' self-delusions so carefully constructed since Kant. Instead, Rorty proposes that we see philosophy as just another way of talking about problems we face in life, similar to and equal with poetry, literature, but also the social and physical sciences.

Indeed, one of the criticisms often made of Rorty is that he ignores the way in which the natural sciences 'work', and that this proves that it must in some way be 'in contact with reality'. Similarly, many people have felt threatened that if we do away with truth 'out there' and representation entirely, there will be no basis on which to decide what is true and what is not, and how we will separate the scientific from the every-day. Rorty is fortunately aware of these issues and counters them, stating that there is in fact no practical difference between saying that "science works because it's true" and "science is true because it works". The latter is just a more practical way of saying it, since truth is whatever we feel is warrantedly assertible at any time, given what we think works. Rorty therefore wants to do away with the special status of science as such as well, seeing no reason to see physical sciences as more "real" than social ones, nor sciences altogether as an a priori more "real" description of the world than any other (though it may of course well be a more practical way to talk about things for all sorts of purposes). This is especially interesting since a lot of people who feel called upon to defend the importance of Truth tend to view the physical sciences as paradigmatic, and this is also the case with the tradition of analytical philosophy, which tries to model philosophy after those sciences. Rorty himself started off as one of those, but halfway an already succesful academic career, he changed his mind entirely.

Overall, Rorty's attack on 'realism' of various kinds in philosophy of science as well as epistemology, metaphysics, and all a priori talk in general is as powerful as it is intelligent, and fans of the late Wittgenstein (like me) will feel that peculiar sensation of a suffocating cloud of ancient philosophical problems and dualisms being finally lifted, letting fresh air and sunlight in. Dissolving problems rather than solving them is Rorty's purpose, and he succeeds admirably.

The book is at a high level of abstraction, assumes thorough knowledge with at least 20th century philosophical writing as well as a reasonably strong knowledge of the history of philosophy, and is certainly not easy reading. Nevertheless, Rorty is in my view one of the most revolutionary philosophers of the 20th Century, together with Wittgenstein, and since this book is his primary formulation of his views, it is a must read.

Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty (1981)