rc&am wrote:
> jks (?),
>
> i read some of rorty and felt like screaming. do i think he is a
> fool? not at all; i think he's a sinister fellow actually. do i
> think he is worth writing about? for sure, because he is looking for
> a way out of the fukayama impasse. i do like rebecca comay's article
> on rorty, and ellen rooney has some interesting things to say as
> well. i was asking not for a character reference on rorty, but for
> someone to explain to me the attraction of his theories. am i looking
> for a debate? no. i was sincerely asking a question. i am baffled
> that some people would regard rorty as anything more than a
> (US/academic) supremacist. if there is more to him than this, i would
> really like to know.
>
> regards,
> angela
Have you read Rorty's magnum opus Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature? His historical approach to analytic philosophy is refreshing. He has an excellent knowledge of the history of philosophy though you may find his interpretations questionable.He used to work squarely in the analytic tradition writing some fine papers on the mind-body problem.His approach is a quasi-Wittgensteinian deflationary one. The whole idea of the mind as a representation of reality has been undermined by the work of Quine, Sellars and Davidson who,together, have shown that there are no priveledged representations, no 'given' and hence no foundations for epistemology or even anything left for epistemology to explain.What's left is a kind of descriptive hermeneutics exemplified by modern European thinkers like Lyotard, Derrida and Gadamer as well as works of art,fiction. The goal of analytic philosophy was mistaken and we should just go and read a good novel and engage in coversations comparing our own descriptions of the world to try and find one that seems to fit together and work the best. As another poster mentioned he has done a lot to introduce European philosophy to english-speaking audiences e.g. he uses Heidegger's argument for the coherence theory of truth in sections 40-41 of Being and Time. Rorty also falls into Marx's habit of quoting references in the original ancient Greek.( serious scholars are supposed to know ancient Greek, right?) As for his personal politics I know Rorty is a strong supporter of the idea of organized labor and the feminist movement. His lukewarm American nationalism is what drives me up the wall.I disagree with Rorty on philosophy but he is not an academic supremacist. His whole, project, as I read it, is to dethrone academic philosophy making it a part of the English or Humanities department.I hope the heavyweights on this list correct me if I'm wrong.
Sam Pawlett