>what you can criticize others for is that they
>presume that methods might enable them to get closer to or approximate the
>position of cartographer. no one believes that an archemedean position is
>possible, but lthey do think methods can get you closer to such a position.
But then you could criticize someone for believing that such an archmedean position is meaningful at all.
If you replied that this is conceit 'cause any Theory has epistomological privilege lurking in it I would agree about the privilege -- that's almost tautological. But what is inconsistent about a Theory that denies its worth? Like Wittgenstein sez, "the point of philosophising is to show the fly the way out of the bottle". When I assert something because I believe it is correct i might be a bit righteous about it because I am human and have an ego. No theorectical position will give one the wisdom and spiritual grace to move beyond this. If Rorty has false humility that is his problem and if he uses it as rhetorical weapon that's the problem of someone who has to read him. But that fact that i might exhibit this "righteousness" (for lack of a better term) does not imply that i am asserting my belief as the Truth (that is, unknowingly or duplicitly acknowleging the meaning of this "archmedean position").
-- adam