on 4/10/01 6:09 PM, pcrugh.geo@xxxxxxxxxxx at pcrugh.geo@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
<out of order>
> Is Rorty making
> problems, or is he solving any? That's what we are interested in.
No, that's what you're interested in. It's even possible he could be doing
both. Why is "solving problems" the basis for consideration?
Seems to privilege Rorty before ever considering what you're privileging.
> 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).
Personally? Well as I recall his wife did divorce him for abuse.... But
that's not so relevant to the philosophy itself. Neither is the claim that
he's a "good guy," even if he is.
> 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.
And as does every other useless form of knowledge. That doesn't make it
worth engaging.
> 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.
Coherence is artificial. No system is ever coherent, it just hides its
contradictions. To know that a system is complete is to ignore its
incompleteness, as it will always be either tautological or based upon an
appeal to some external foundations.
Framing the question as this search for coherence is exactly what enables
Rorty to co-opt the entirety (whatever that means) of critical theory in the
name of liberalism.
> 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 think you're conflating points here. When did philosophy even become a
concern, anyway? What if philosophy is impossible these days (it seems maybe
anything but theology, even, may be impossible)?
If we're talking about critical theory then shouldn't we talk about it as a
toolbox? Maybe even producing tools that "work"? What is coherence when we
recognize that it's impossible to ever engage more than specific points?
> 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.
I'm not sure I understand this part.
What is admiration? What is defense of the self (what is the self?)? Who are
the others?
> 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? Saying
> that he is ridiculous is really saying so little that you have to
> wonder.
Sometimes I think it might be better that way. Rorty is like Habermas.
T(he)y are(is) the Borg. Coherence is a way of making so many distinctions
that a system can be established to do away with things you don't like.
Saying that it is ridiculous, sometimes, is a way of refusing to engage such
absurdity. After all, who has been able to attack all of the errors in
either Rorty or Habermas without getting lost in their own moral (liberal
for Rorty) ooze?
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House ? make no mistake about
it." -- Bush
<out of order>
> Is Rorty making
> problems, or is he solving any? That's what we are interested in.
No, that's what you're interested in. It's even possible he could be doing
both. Why is "solving problems" the basis for consideration?
Seems to privilege Rorty before ever considering what you're privileging.
> 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).
Personally? Well as I recall his wife did divorce him for abuse.... But
that's not so relevant to the philosophy itself. Neither is the claim that
he's a "good guy," even if he is.
> 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.
And as does every other useless form of knowledge. That doesn't make it
worth engaging.
> 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.
Coherence is artificial. No system is ever coherent, it just hides its
contradictions. To know that a system is complete is to ignore its
incompleteness, as it will always be either tautological or based upon an
appeal to some external foundations.
Framing the question as this search for coherence is exactly what enables
Rorty to co-opt the entirety (whatever that means) of critical theory in the
name of liberalism.
> 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 think you're conflating points here. When did philosophy even become a
concern, anyway? What if philosophy is impossible these days (it seems maybe
anything but theology, even, may be impossible)?
If we're talking about critical theory then shouldn't we talk about it as a
toolbox? Maybe even producing tools that "work"? What is coherence when we
recognize that it's impossible to ever engage more than specific points?
> 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.
I'm not sure I understand this part.
What is admiration? What is defense of the self (what is the self?)? Who are
the others?
> 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? Saying
> that he is ridiculous is really saying so little that you have to
> wonder.
Sometimes I think it might be better that way. Rorty is like Habermas.
T(he)y are(is) the Borg. Coherence is a way of making so many distinctions
that a system can be established to do away with things you don't like.
Saying that it is ridiculous, sometimes, is a way of refusing to engage such
absurdity. After all, who has been able to attack all of the errors in
either Rorty or Habermas without getting lost in their own moral (liberal
for Rorty) ooze?
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House ? make no mistake about
it." -- Bush