It not my problem alone but a two way communication issue, more so when the other party is so dogmatically narrow minded with their views.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:43 pmAnd yet I am going to take the time to explain something that would be helpful for you under the condition that you read it - which you may not -, and actually stop to try and understand something anohter person wrote - which you don't really do very often. So let's see how that trivial gambe works out.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:24 amYou are in my 'ignore' list, so happen to read the above post;FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:26 pm
You know that Rorty book you keep pretending to have read? The mistaken thinking that gives rise to this question is well covered in the first chapter as I recall. So maybe just read it.
Doing things like that, as well as putting entire religious texts into spreadsheets, and endlessly reading the same thing over and over again might not actually be very efficent methods of actually comprehending what something is about. In this case at least, I would say you are missing the point - failing to see the woods beause there are a bunch of trees in the way as the old idiom goes.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:24 am Still reading Rorty's book. I converted it to Words, thus has to take time to reformat it properly. Read one time already [line by line] will go through it again a few rounds.
I believe whatever Rorty condemned in his book are useful but their inherent limitations must be qualified.Rorty in that book is telling you a tale of how predecessors to Kant including Aristotle and Descartes created a metaphor for how we come to know things based on knowing being much like seeing. That is the point of all that stuff about glassy essences and mind as the mirror of nature. Kant pretty much is just the guy who best formalised those choices his predecessors made without really questioning them.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:24 am Rorty mentioned Kant >200 times all over the book, he dealt with Kant mainly in Chapter III,
- Chapter III: The Idea Of A "Theory of Knowledge" 131
1. Epistemology And Philosophy's Self-Image 131
2. Locke's Confusion Of Explanation With Justification 139
3. Kant's Confusion Of Predication With Synthesis 148
4. Knowledge As Needing "Foundations" 155
The problem is when those engage in various philosophies get too dogmatic and ideological with their views as with the logical positivists, classical analytic philosophers and others, as Rorty stated,
- Philosophy as a whole was shrugged off by those who wanted an ideology or a self-image.
In my "Philosophy" Folder I have 9000+ files in 550 folders which cover all notable philosophies and philosophers.Your claim to be a great analyst of Kant is that you spent three years doing nothing but read Kant for 8 hours per day?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:24 am Rorty mentioned he understood Kant via analytic philosophers like Strawson and other critics.
I know for sure, these analytic philosophers with their inherent bias NEVER fully understood Kant.
So Rorty's critique of Kant synthetic a priori [necessary to critique the thing-in-itself] is not credible.
I would suggest that years spent investigating not merely Kant but all of philosophy and doing so via open conversation and actual consideration of competing interpretations might work better than that. That would be the sin that Rorty is confessing there.
Personally I am interested in how Rorty condemned the Classical Analytic Philosophy to the rubbish bin.
But I am well aware Rorty did not fully grasp Kant's philosophy. I am digging into that more closely.
The point is if one were to critique a book one must have a thorough grasp [not necessary agree with] of the points. Reading it once will not help. This is what I suggest to critiques of Kant to do the same.
Here is a summary to Rorty's Introduction in Mirror of Nature;
- Evolution of the Philosophical Urge re Foundation of Knowledge to the anti-Cartesian and anti-Kantian revolution
Aim of this Book to UNDERMINE Confidence of ..
Analytic Philosophy Need Changes to Improve
The Independent Framework of Analytic Philosophy
Foundation of Knowledge due to a priori Elements
Philosophy Escaped from History
Summary for Part and Chapters
Picture – Mind as a Mirror
Historical Phenomenon of Mirror-Imagery Missing
Dewey’s aesthetic enhancement and Hope to pierce through and shatter that crust of philosophical convention
That is where you get ideological with either or else.That's not really how it works with that book though. You either buy into the argument that most of these silly debates about whether there is or is not a really really really real world to inspect with some non extended but really really real mind are founded on an arbitrary mistake that caused centuries of confused epistemology on the basis of a bad allegory to vision, or you just don't agree with Rorty in the least.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:24 am While I agree with certain aspects of Rorty's condemnation of the logical positivists, the classical analytic philosophers and others, I do not agree with him on everything.
I agree with Rorty's pragmatism but it has to have limits.
Note Russell's
- Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;