Re: Rorty

When I described Rorty's response to "philosophically grounded"
vocabulaires, I meant to play Rorty's game with him, that is, to understand
grounding here are implying nothing more that orientation. I don't think I
can provide a better rejoinder to Erik's defense of Rorty( as one who has,
unlike his ironic opponents, displayed a willingness to "come to grips with
some rather painful deflations of "our" philosophical pretensions") (if
I've read correctly) than the one provided by Nathan. I have found in my
limited readings of Rorty and his critiques of anti-foundationalism a
failure to grasp the consequences of thought beyond metaphysics. Deleuze
described the groundless ground we associate with post modern and anti
foundationalist theories in the early 60's in his book on Nietzsche as "the
positivity of the negative", thereby deriving from within the end of
philosophy a positive and critical moment, something Rorty simply can't
grasp, or doesn't attribute any real significance to. Seems to me Rorty's
approach to the problem of limited perspective is desceptively common
place, and both excuses itself of the labour of addressing the real
requirements of this turn, while at the same time letting slip the critical
and affirmative potentials it implies.

I'm a little unclear how Eric derives from Rorty's death of God a less
limited perspective than Nietzsche/Foucault' bringing in "utility" as
something which requires no philosophical grounding?



Partial thread listing: