Mike Fuller discusses the liberalism of Richard Rorty.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/20/Solidarity_in_the_Conversation_of_Humankind_The_Ungroundable_Liberalism_of_Richard_Rorty_by_Norman_Geras
Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty by Norman Geras
-
Philosophy Now
- Posts: 1207
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am
-
TimeSeeker
- Posts: 2866
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am
Re: Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty by Norman Geras
I am a great admirer of Rorty and the school of pragmatism in general. And the way to avoid the contradictions of all 'no common traits' arguments is to avoid forming the debate around any naturalistic/empirical notion of 'human nature', which I suspect is as a result of philosophy's irrational fear of crossing the is-ought gap while simultaneously trying to 'ground' human values.
I say - screw the is-ought gap (which really should've been called the past-future gap)! We have common goals and cooperation is a more rational strategy than competition! That is sufficient for solidarity.
All philosophical problems are pragmatically surmountable from teleology. Grounding is not required.
I say - screw the is-ought gap (which really should've been called the past-future gap)! We have common goals and cooperation is a more rational strategy than competition! That is sufficient for solidarity.
All philosophical problems are pragmatically surmountable from teleology. Grounding is not required.
Re: Solidarity in the Conversation of Humankind: The Ungroundable Liberalism of Richard Rorty by Norman Geras
I found this article by Fuller completely useless.
Fuller avoids examining the meat of the topic with buzzwords that are to me untelling. Let's take just one paragraph as an example; I assure the reader that all paragraphs are similar in wording style.
"I admire him for being one of the few contemporary philosophers with the ambition – and also the talent and the scholarship – to force a dialogue between Analytic and Continental philosophy. Perhaps most important of all, I find, provisionally at least, his epistemological conclusions immaculate, although his pragmatic arguments for a thoroughgoing naturalist metaphysic (his so-called ‘non-reductive physicalism’) I can’t help regarding as a temperamental bias (and one very at odds with William James’s pragmatic arguments in the other direction in The Varieties of Religious Experience)."
What's Analytic and what's Continental philosophy? HOW he forced the dialogue, what he SAYS is omitted; it is TOLD not SHOWN that the original book had something to say.
Epistemological conclusions are immaculte, but not his pragmatic arguments. So what? It tells the reader of a quality, not of a substance, in the original piece.
Non-reductive physicalism -- gimme a break. If you can't write in English, why do you write at all?
William James -- to understand the temperamental bias, now one has to completely familiarize oneself with William James' entire life work? What sort of a non-informative, highfolutin, snobbish, content-lacking, insanely over-referenced, and altogether incomprehensible text is this?
Fuller avoids examining the meat of the topic with buzzwords that are to me untelling. Let's take just one paragraph as an example; I assure the reader that all paragraphs are similar in wording style.
"I admire him for being one of the few contemporary philosophers with the ambition – and also the talent and the scholarship – to force a dialogue between Analytic and Continental philosophy. Perhaps most important of all, I find, provisionally at least, his epistemological conclusions immaculate, although his pragmatic arguments for a thoroughgoing naturalist metaphysic (his so-called ‘non-reductive physicalism’) I can’t help regarding as a temperamental bias (and one very at odds with William James’s pragmatic arguments in the other direction in The Varieties of Religious Experience)."
What's Analytic and what's Continental philosophy? HOW he forced the dialogue, what he SAYS is omitted; it is TOLD not SHOWN that the original book had something to say.
Epistemological conclusions are immaculte, but not his pragmatic arguments. So what? It tells the reader of a quality, not of a substance, in the original piece.
Non-reductive physicalism -- gimme a break. If you can't write in English, why do you write at all?
William James -- to understand the temperamental bias, now one has to completely familiarize oneself with William James' entire life work? What sort of a non-informative, highfolutin, snobbish, content-lacking, insanely over-referenced, and altogether incomprehensible text is this?