> > I dont know how exactly Rorty is politically useful.
>
>I'm not claiming that he is. I am not overly familiar with him, but
>my impression is that he is a hack who misunderstands the
>philosophies with which he attempts to deal.
If you are "not overly familiar with him," I wonder if you owe it to
yourself ... and the volume of this list ... to deal with your own
misunderstood "impression."
>Because I find him useless, I don't make a study of him and I don't
>join Rorty e-mail lists.
If indeed you "find him useless," I wonder if you owe it to yourself
... and the volume of this list ... to study him.
>Dewey says that for the pragmatist, the utility of a proposal or
>theory is judged by the likelihood that it will contribute to the
>future conditions it seeks. Granted, Foucault's work does not
>inherently suggest any future conditions ....
Why would you necessarily expect it to?
If Foucault is not the Dewey-eyed pragmatist is he perhaps the
Levi-Straussean bricoleur?
>
>I'm not claiming that he is. I am not overly familiar with him, but
>my impression is that he is a hack who misunderstands the
>philosophies with which he attempts to deal.
If you are "not overly familiar with him," I wonder if you owe it to
yourself ... and the volume of this list ... to deal with your own
misunderstood "impression."
>Because I find him useless, I don't make a study of him and I don't
>join Rorty e-mail lists.
If indeed you "find him useless," I wonder if you owe it to yourself
... and the volume of this list ... to study him.
>Dewey says that for the pragmatist, the utility of a proposal or
>theory is judged by the likelihood that it will contribute to the
>future conditions it seeks. Granted, Foucault's work does not
>inherently suggest any future conditions ....
Why would you necessarily expect it to?
If Foucault is not the Dewey-eyed pragmatist is he perhaps the
Levi-Straussean bricoleur?