I'd like to point out that Rorty is not really a bad guy, even though I
have not met him (I have read his work, and his criticism of the
pragmatic theory of truth). If anything should be asked of him it is how
his philosophy contributes to the history of philosophy, as all
philosophers continue to do so. Many of us are interested in systems of
thought, meaning that they are concise, consistent, and in some attempt
to be both internally and externally coherent. One philosopher need not
argue for all philosophy. But if there is no real problem, if there is
no real history of philosophy, then all our judgments and criticism of
philosophy are bogus. Ridiculous? I don't think so, and I can argue
against that. What is ridiculous is that people do not argue for them
selves, while arguing against those who argue for others, and on their
behalf, not merely for the philosophy one admires. If anyone would like
to discuss this, that's fine. But I don't want to load up the argument
before it gets under way. So, let's have at it? Is Rorty making
problems, or is he solving any? That's what we are interested in. Saying
that he is ridiculous is really saying so little that you have to
wonder.
Jivko Georgiev wrote:
> Tell him, that he is ridiculous :-)
> Zhivko
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
have not met him (I have read his work, and his criticism of the
pragmatic theory of truth). If anything should be asked of him it is how
his philosophy contributes to the history of philosophy, as all
philosophers continue to do so. Many of us are interested in systems of
thought, meaning that they are concise, consistent, and in some attempt
to be both internally and externally coherent. One philosopher need not
argue for all philosophy. But if there is no real problem, if there is
no real history of philosophy, then all our judgments and criticism of
philosophy are bogus. Ridiculous? I don't think so, and I can argue
against that. What is ridiculous is that people do not argue for them
selves, while arguing against those who argue for others, and on their
behalf, not merely for the philosophy one admires. If anyone would like
to discuss this, that's fine. But I don't want to load up the argument
before it gets under way. So, let's have at it? Is Rorty making
problems, or is he solving any? That's what we are interested in. Saying
that he is ridiculous is really saying so little that you have to
wonder.
Jivko Georgiev wrote:
> Tell him, that he is ridiculous :-)
> Zhivko
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/