Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Rorty - No Mind-Independent Reality

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

At present I am reading Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979) [mentioned by PantFlasher].

Here are some points on Richard Rorty from Wiki, in particular his rejection of classical Analytic Philosophy which Peter Holmes, Terrapin Station, et. al. are clinging on so dogmatically.
..he [Rorty] had strong interests and training in both the history of philosophy and contemporary analytic philosophy, the latter of which came to constitute the main focus of his work at Princeton University in the 1960s.

He subsequently came to reject the tradition of philosophy [classical Analytic Philosophy] according to which knowledge involves correct representation (a "mirror of nature") of a world whose existence remains wholly independent of that representation.

Rorty saw the idea of knowledge as a "mirror of nature" as pervasive throughout the history of western philosophy. Against this approach, Rorty advocated for a novel form of American pragmatism (sometimes called neopragmatism)[4] in which scientific and philosophical methods form merely a set of contingent "vocabularies" which people abandon or adopt over time according to social conventions and usefulness.

Rorty believed abandoning representationalist accounts of knowledge and language would lead to a state of mind he referred to as "ironism", in which people become completely aware of the contingency of their placement in history and of their philosophical vocabulary.

He believed that without the representationalist accounts, and without metaphors between the mind and the world, human society would behave more peacefully.
He also emphasized the reasons why the interpretation of culture as conversation (Bernstein 1971) constitutes the crucial concept of a "postphilosophical" culture determined to abandon representationalist accounts of traditional epistemology, incorporating American pragmatism with metaphysical naturalism.

Pragmatists generally hold that the meaning of a proposition is determined by its use in linguistic practice. Rorty combined pragmatism about truth and other matters with a later Wittgensteinian philosophy of language which declares that meaning is a social-linguistic product, and sentences do not 'link up' with the world in a correspondence relation. Rorty wrote in his Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (1989):
  • Truth cannot be out there—cannot exist independently of the human mind—because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.
    The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own unaided by the describing activities of humans cannot."(5)
According to Rorty, analytic philosophy may not have lived up to its pretensions and may not have solved the puzzles it thought it had.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Feb 22, 2024 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The centerpiece of Rorty's critique is the provocative account offered in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979, hereafter PMN).
In this book, and in the closely related essays collected in Consequences of Pragmatism (1982, hereafter CP), Rorty's principal target is the philosophical idea of knowledge as representation, as a mental mirroring of a mind-external world.

Providing a contrasting image of philosophy, Rorty has sought to integrate and apply the milestone achievements of Dewey, Hegel and Darwin in a pragmatist synthesis of historicism and naturalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rorty/
[AI] According to the article, Richard Rorty did not believe in mind-independent reality. He argued that we should abandon the idea of trying to represent reality accurately, and instead focus on the usefulness of our beliefs.
Rorty argues that reality is not mind-independent but rather mind-dependent. He believes that we should abandon the idea that we can have perfect knowledge of the world and instead focus on what is useful.

[AI] The document says that Rorty rejected the idea that there is a mind-independent, external reality.
Rorty rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that exists independently of human thought and language. He argues that our knowledge is limited to our own vocabularies and that these vocabularies are constantly changing. Thus, there is no single, fixed reality; instead, there are multiple realities, each shaped by our own unique perspectives and experiences.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Feb 22, 2024 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Skepdick »

All human beings carry about a set of words which they employ to justify their actions, their beliefs, and their lives. These are the words in which we formulate praise of our friends and contempt for our enemies, our long-term projects, our deepest self-doubts and our highest hopes… I shall call these words a person's “final vocabulary”. Those words are as far as he can go with language; beyond them is only helpless passivity or a resort to force. (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity p. 73)
Philosophers know this. This is why they play the game of "justification". It's better to settle disagreements through words than through violence and to this end we need (but don't yet have) a shared vocabulary - a universal language.

That said, if your actions are not immoral you don't have to justify yourself or your beliefs to anyone.

There's a fine line between justification and persuasion.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:40 am
All human beings carry about a set of words which they employ to justify their actions, their beliefs, and their lives. These are the words in which we formulate praise of our friends and contempt for our enemies, our long-term projects, our deepest self-doubts and our highest hopes… I shall call these words a person's “final vocabulary”. Those words are as far as he can go with language; beyond them is only helpless passivity or a resort to force. (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity p. 73)
Philosophers know this. This is why they play the game of "justification". It's better to settle disagreements through words than through violence and to this end we need (but don't yet have) a shared vocabulary - a universal language.

That said, if your actions are not immoral you don't have to justify yourself or your beliefs to anyone.

There's a fine line between justification and persuasion.
I believe some degree of justification is necessary in the relevant contexts, but not justificationism.

For example I always stated there is a need to "justify" within a credible FSK, but accept the most credible justified conclusions as in the scientific FSK are at best 'polished conjectures' which can to be used optimally for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:34 am For example I always stated there is a need to "justify" within a credible FSK, but accept the most credible justified conclusions as in the scientific FSK are at best 'polished conjectures' which can to be used optimally for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
You've arrived at utilitarianism.

And Philosophers (being the little nit-pickers they are) will point out all the problems for you.

Beware Philosophers. They have a problem for every solution
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:35 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:34 am For example I always stated there is a need to "justify" within a credible FSK, but accept the most credible justified conclusions as in the scientific FSK are at best 'polished conjectures' which can to be used optimally for the well being of the individuals and humanity.
You've arrived at utilitarianism.

And Philosophers (being the little nit-pickers they are) will point out all the problems for you.

Beware Philosophers. They have a problem for every solution
Note exactly, utilitarianism is generally with reference to a specific topic of morality.

As Rorty had stated all over his book, Mirror of Nature, e.g.
Gadamer develops his notion of wirkungsgeschichtliches Bewusstsein (the sort of consciousness of the past which changes us) to characterize an attitude interested
not so much in what is out there in the world, or in what happened in history,
as in what we can get out of nature and history for our own uses. -359
And Wittgenstein has stated the meaning of words is in their use, not definitions.

But whatever is to be used has to be polished within morality-proper.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:43 am Note exactly, utilitarianism is generally with reference to a specific topic of morality.
It's understood generally, not relating to any specifics - no need to reduce it.

The implications/goals of utilitarianism are human well-being.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:52 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 4:43 am What you're quoting there is still not about facts per se being indeterminate. It's a point about language in a theory of nature. The paragraph in question begins, "Though linguistics is of course part of the theory of nature . . ."
I admit, I have not mastered Rorty's book yet, but the gist I gather is Rorty referencing Quine and Sellars, is he do not agree there are "matter-of-facts" of the classical analytic philosophy.
Well, the Quine quote is from the Davidson and Hintikka-edited book. That's what Rorty is quoting.
But sure, Rorty would have some community-oriented definition of "fact."

If only Rorty's philosophy wasn't a mess. ;-)
How is Rorty's philosophy a mess?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 5:52 am
I admit, I have not mastered Rorty's book yet, but the gist I gather is Rorty referencing Quine and Sellars, is he do not agree there are "matter-of-facts" of the classical analytic philosophy.
Well, the Quine quote is from the Davidson and Hintikka-edited book. That's what Rorty is quoting.
But sure, Rorty would have some community-oriented definition of "fact."

If only Rorty's philosophy wasn't a mess. ;-)
How is Rorty's philosophy a mess?
One simple way it's a mess is something you've parroted more or less but won't address: if it's not possible to observe the external world (and more or less as it is), then one can't claim to (a) not be at least an epistemological solipsist, and (b) be capable of observing other people to see what they say about the world, in order to talk about consensuses, community, etc.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:18 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 4:12 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:45 am
Well, the Quine quote is from the Davidson and Hintikka-edited book. That's what Rorty is quoting.
But sure, Rorty would have some community-oriented definition of "fact."

If only Rorty's philosophy wasn't a mess. ;-)
How is Rorty's philosophy a mess?
One simple way it's a mess is something you've parroted more or less but won't address: if it's not possible to observe the external world (and more or less as it is), then one can't claim to (a) not be at least an epistemological solipsist, and (b) be capable of observing other people to see what they say about the world, in order to talk about consensuses, community, etc.
I believe you have not read Rorty's book, as such is not qualified to comment on Rorty's stance as a mess.

I have never said it is not possible to observe the external world.
ALL humans are "programmed" with a sense of externalness i.e. the concept of the external world.
The computer screen I am looking at while I am typing at present is external to me, i.e. in the sense of existing in the 'external' world and is empirically real. This is the common sense, conventional sense and empirical sense that are inherent in all human beings.
In these senses, there is nothing solipsistic and all humans are capable of observing other people on all their actions.

However, the problem is empirical reality is not highly credible, especially with the existence of various types of illusions.
In addition, empirical objects are made of secondary and primary properties which are argued to be subjective [Berkeley].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Be ... aterialism

So there is the quest for the simple substance from the complex object, i.e.
  • Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory positing that objects are constituted each by a substance and properties borne by the substance but distinct from it. In this role, a substance can be referred to as a substratum or a thing-in-itself.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory
Aren't you aware, your naive realism is grounded on substance theory as above?

As with naive realists you claimed that external objects/things are absolutely independent of human beings and the human collective.
In this case, these external things whilst are external empirical things, they are ultimately external thing-in-themselves.

My stance;
However and whatever, for the anti-realists [Kantian], ultimately the external object is always in entanglement with the human observers and the human collective.
As such there is no thing-in-itself.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:21 am
However, the problem is empirical reality is not highly credible, especially with the existence of various types of illusions.
So for example there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:21 am
However, the problem is empirical reality is not highly credible, especially with the existence of various types of illusions.
So for example there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.
Note there are different levels of illusions, i.e.
1. Empirical - senses
2. Logical illusions - fallacies
3. Transcendental illusions - things-in-themselves

Within the empirical FSK, whatever do not qualify as empirical reality is an illusion, e.g. a bent stick between water and air, the Hering illusion where two straight parallel line appears bent, etc.

However what are real empirical things will be transcendental illusions if they are claimed IDEOLOGICALLY to be absolutely real independent things-in-themselves as Physical Realists, Naive Realists are claiming.

So far, what I gathered of Rorty's view is, he argued and insisted philosophers should abandoned all till-the-cows-come-home sort of dichotomies and antinomies.
Then they should ensure to continue the conversation/discourse amicably and agree-to-disagree without being ideological with 'ism' like the scientism of the logical positivists who got embarrassed by their very arrogant dogmatic ideologies which were proven to be false subsequently.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:18 pm One simple way it's a mess is something you've parroted more or less but won't address: if it's not possible to observe the external world (and more or less as it is), then one can't claim to (a) not be at least an epistemological solipsist, and (b) be capable of observing other people to see what they say about the world, in order to talk about consensuses, community, etc.
That sounds like a comment made by somebody who hasn't read Rorty. And your lack of understanding is demonstrated.

There's a gap between observing the world and expressing one's observations in language. How does one go from observations to theories?
In order to address this you need a theory of theorising. Oooops! You are now circling the drain!

For example you have observed me. And then you have developed a theory about me. And your theory about me is that I am an "epistemic solipsist".
How have you established a relationship between those words and me?

1. Do you have a theory of how you've arrived at that theory? No you don't!
2. Your theory about me is wrong. I am not an epistemic solipsist. In fact, take all of the philosophical positions as defined in books, encyclopaedias and libraries around the world. I am not any of those either. My philosophy is the rejection of philosophy. You can't represent me in language - you should probably stop wasting your time trying.

As luck would have it, followers of Rorty are now developing Anti-representationalism as Neopragmatism and Global Expressivism

From Lecture 1
Rorty claims:
....
• But his further, still more radical, claim is that since representation has defined modern
philosophy, jettisoning it is jettisoning philosophy, since he sees philosophy since Kant as
just “whatever Kant did.” If we can’t do that anymore (since we can’t have the concept
of representation) then we will just have moved to a new sort of discipline.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Age »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:40 am
All human beings carry about a set of words which they employ to justify their actions, their beliefs, and their lives. These are the words in which we formulate praise of our friends and contempt for our enemies, our long-term projects, our deepest self-doubts and our highest hopes… I shall call these words a person's “final vocabulary”. Those words are as far as he can go with language; beyond them is only helpless passivity or a resort to force. (Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity p. 73)
Philosophers know this. This is why they play the game of "justification". It's better to settle disagreements through words than through violence and to this end we need (but don't yet have) a shared vocabulary - a universal language.
And one reason WHY 'you', human beings, in the days of when this was written, still did not yet have a 'shared vocabulary' is because of your insistence to ASSUME and GUESS, BEFORE CLARIFYING and CHECKING.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:40 am That said, if your actions are not immoral you don't have to justify yourself or your beliefs to anyone.
And this is WHY the adult human beings in those days when this was written were constantly 'trying to' "justify" to each other their BELIEFS and WRONG BEHAVIORS.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:40 am There's a fine line between justification and persuasion.
If something 'needs' to be 'justified', then it is knowingly Wrong anyway, and thus could NOT be persuaded.

What is Right is also ALREADY KNOWN. 'It', however, is just NOT YET able to be shared. This is because 'it' is just NOT YET consciously known.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Richard Rorty

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:23 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:28 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 6:21 am
However, the problem is empirical reality is not highly credible, especially with the existence of various types of illusions.
So for example there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.
Note there are different levels of illusions, i.e.
1. Empirical - senses
2. Logical illusions - fallacies
3. Transcendental illusions - things-in-themselves

Within the empirical FSK, whatever do not qualify as empirical reality is an illusion, e.g. a bent stick between water and air, the Hering illusion where two straight parallel line appears bent, etc.

However what are real empirical things will be transcendental illusions if they are claimed IDEOLOGICALLY to be absolutely real independent things-in-themselves as Physical Realists, Naive Realists are claiming.

So far, what I gathered of Rorty's view is, he argued and insisted philosophers should abandoned all till-the-cows-come-home sort of dichotomies and antinomies.
Then they should ensure to continue the conversation/discourse amicably and agree-to-disagree without being ideological with 'ism' like the scientism of the logical positivists who got embarrassed by their very arrogant dogmatic ideologies which were proven to be false subsequently.
None of this changes the fact that there is absolutely no ground for claiming that anything is an illusion unless we're claiming that we're getting right what something is like contra a particular appearance. Which means that we can observe what things are really like.
Post Reply