"Frances Bolton (PHI)" wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Sam Pawlett wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> You asked for the "heavyweights" response, but I'm going to ignore that
> and respond . No, I don't think he quite wants to dethrone academic
> philosophy and make it part of the humanities. He *does* wish that
> analytic philosophy would release its hold on philos. depts. They've taken
> philosophy, which used to have inspirational and prophetic value (Mind
> you: I am channeling Rorty right now--this does not necessarily reflect
> my personal opinions, although it might)) and made it into tedious,
> nitpicky, technical, petty arguments about word usage. He worries that
> theory might do the same to english depts. Now, he *does* suggest that
> novelists and journalists write about ethical issues better than
> philosophers. And, since literary theorists rather than philosopers read
> more novels, and therefore come across more ethical systems & conflicts
> than do philosophers, they might be better suited to "doing ethics."
>
> For the stuff on analytic philos. see the last chapter in *AChieving Our
> Country*, For the stuff on literature, see *Contingency, Irony, &
> Solidarity*--can't remember the chapter.
>
> frances
Could be that I've misread Rorty.I've haven't read anything of his, past about 1985. With regards to his meta-philosophy, he says different things in different places.How about this from Consequences of Pragmatism p227-8. "The result is to leave America philosophy departments stranded between the humanities(their ancestral home), the natural sciences(the territory into which they had once hoped to move, but were never fully accepted) and the social sciences(toward which they are now putting out feelers). The older type of philosophy professor -who might have been a historian or literary critic as well-is dying out. The newer sort would like to think of himself as a free-ranging analytic intellect, able to bring "philosophical expertise" to bear on anything that comes up..."
For Rorty, philosophy dissolves into natural science, humanities or psychology and sociology.One of Rorty's shortcomings is his failure to engage marxism of any kind. He did have a lacklustre debate with Eagleton in _Radical Philosophy_ saying that marxism was irrelevant since few people believe it, there is no marxist movement and TINA. He can say this because of his pragmatism and his eschewing of the correspondence theory of truth. With a corr. theory of truth, the truth of a theory or a proposition does not depend on how many people believe it. I think Rorty would benefit from engaging with a theory of ideology. The 'conversations' he is always alluding to are warped and distorted by ideology. Ordinary discourse is not communication free from domination. I really have to read that NOrman Geras book. I still like Locke's metaphor of the philosopher as laborer clearing away the metaphysical rubbish for science.
Sam PAwlett