Forgive me, but I should have made the point that arguing for one's
contribution of philosophy is a very large thing to do. Asking any one
of us to do so is proof of that. But we are interested in where we are
heading in time as much as we are interested in knowing what we are
doing at all. What is ominous is the confrontation of having to explain
everything, which is what the "classical" American pragmatists
fearlessly responded to, and freed up the immanent boundaries to
learning. I myself was very critical of that, but I am quite a youngster
at this, and have tried to do what they did somewhat successfully. (for
those who don't know, pragmatism was not intended to be a movement, but
an art whose creator was Charles Sanders Pierce in the very late 1890's,
and was intended to delimit the authority of a growing body of
scientists, e.g., like Durkheim, even Kant - but Americans had no
foundational relationship to science, yet, there was none and many tiny
parts of the country there still is none).
I think that is how Rorty (and I wish I had the opportunity to do so)
would like to put things into perspective, as in looking at a mirror and
judging our selves. I am not a recitalist, however, and do not hold it
very crucial to one's understanding to make a history where it is only
relevant to a handful of folks in Indiana.
What I think should be asked of philosophers is: what should we want to
know? What is that knowledge going to do? How big is that tree of the
history of philosophy? How important is it to us?
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/
contribution of philosophy is a very large thing to do. Asking any one
of us to do so is proof of that. But we are interested in where we are
heading in time as much as we are interested in knowing what we are
doing at all. What is ominous is the confrontation of having to explain
everything, which is what the "classical" American pragmatists
fearlessly responded to, and freed up the immanent boundaries to
learning. I myself was very critical of that, but I am quite a youngster
at this, and have tried to do what they did somewhat successfully. (for
those who don't know, pragmatism was not intended to be a movement, but
an art whose creator was Charles Sanders Pierce in the very late 1890's,
and was intended to delimit the authority of a growing body of
scientists, e.g., like Durkheim, even Kant - but Americans had no
foundational relationship to science, yet, there was none and many tiny
parts of the country there still is none).
I think that is how Rorty (and I wish I had the opportunity to do so)
would like to put things into perspective, as in looking at a mirror and
judging our selves. I am not a recitalist, however, and do not hold it
very crucial to one's understanding to make a history where it is only
relevant to a handful of folks in Indiana.
What I think should be asked of philosophers is: what should we want to
know? What is that knowledge going to do? How big is that tree of the
history of philosophy? How important is it to us?
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/