Pragmatism & Truth - Rorty, Putnam, & Conant (2002)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2021
- A discussion between Richard Rorty, Hilary Putnam, and James Conant on pragmatism and truth. This comes from an episode of Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago from back in 2002 with host Gretchen Helfrich. Note, the audio has been improved.
#Philosophy #Epistemology #Rorty
Thank God for commercial breaks though. Asking a philosopher to "hold their thought" is like asking a fish to stop swimming.
I hated that pause. But I suppose I am a fish.
"Thank God for commercial breaks" is the most American sentence ever uttered.
@ronniemacdonald2768 judgmental much. It was a joke. Your sarcasm detector malfunctioned or are you just a sh!thead. And I'm Ukranian.
😂 Too true❤
Pre-Socratic wisdom. , a used by Heraclitus is a flow, a flux of thought. ( unbroken) . Ancient wisdom uses Dow moment, which in Western thought is " like a fish in water. " Commercials confuse the flow of the waters . Existential thinkers use the term " hold that thought " as holding a bandage on the wound while they step out, escaping from the task.
Great debate, I loved when Putnam urged us to distinguish between pragmatism and neopragmatism and added that Rorty was an authorit on neopragmatism. LOL.
Supreme... from start to finish. What a beautiful and brilliant demeanor in the voice of the host(ess)... eh!!:)
I love this so much. Rorty's stance towards Truth is similar to Moore's stance towards Good in the sense that both Truth and Good are undefinable. Truth and Good are our simplest and most obvious concepts; they're perfect good just the way they are, it's just wrongheaded (In Rorty's and Moore' view) to try and define them as if this could do them or us any good.
This is such a gem
Who says there can be certainty about what is real? Probability is the best we can do, folks
This is the most accessible devastating attack against Rorty’s miasmic rhetoric.
I can’t believe I haven’t listened to this before... it seems that the channel’s ‘reset’ is the best thing that could have happened to its fans. Thanks for keeping up the good work.
Didn't strike me as "devastating." Rorty held his own well enough, it seems to me.
"Maybe I'll just close with a thought about the O.J. Simpson trial. I don't think I would have been happy to have the jurors in that trial...talking to Dick just before their deliberations." Probably my favorite part lol
Conant says that assessing a situation means looking at the situation and seeing whether the concept is applied correctly, and not just looking at one's peers for approval. And this is something none human ("looking at the world to see if you got it right"). In what way is it not human? Can we look at a situation and assess correctness of application of concepts without deploying norms that are socially constructed? What is even a candidate for a non human procedure for assessment of correctness of application of concepts? There is still this desire to appeal to something outside of the coordinated, historically situated intersubjective practices. Something that is correct or incorrect independently of all commitments to such practices. I think Rorty is saying 1) what is one appealing to that would qualify? And 2) why do we need it?
It could be the case, and this would be my take, that there is nothing non-human that we can appeal to in order to ground our claims as (assessed by philosophers), yet in practice we do need to believe that there is something that may ground our claims in this way in order to partake in the practices themselves. This might mean that our practices are internally self contradictory, but this does not necessarily reduce their effectiveness.
@@Philosophy_Overdose so James Conant thinks that if only the jurors sat through a couple of his lectures then the verdict would have been different and better? Is this because Conant did have a viable conception of absolute justification? Is Rorty denying that certain forms of justification are worse than others? DNA evidence is only a better form of justification than looking at the person's face to see if they're guilty under the condition of a shared conception of justice of a certain sort, which Conant already accepts. But what is Conant's non human, absolute justification of this conception of justice?
And if you agree with Davidson that only a belief can warrant acceptance or rejection of another belief, then this entails that, if beliefs are inherently human affairs, then there is nothing non human that can underwrite our commitments to the beliefs we hold. Simply staring at the beans won't do.
Uh idk about that?
I’ve been listening to this for years and it’s great to finally have a high quality recording of this! Thank you for all the Rorty! He’s my favorite!
I wish Rorty answered the question about what is the difference between a pragmatic view of truth and relativism.
I think Rorty would say there is no such thing as a single "relativist view of truth" that anybody defends, so it's not clear what he's being asked to contrast his pragmatic view with. He'd probably dismiss accusations that his view is relativist in *some* sense by saying something along the lines of: if you want to deem as "relativist" any conception of truth that doesn't appeal to some non-human ideal, so be it.
Complementing the argument of @DaggerMan11, I am inclined to believe that his point was that no one is in fact a "relativist", as in the sense of "anything goes". Relativism is no more than a phantom conjured by foundationalist thinkers that aim to support their view. To be a relativist, truly, is simply to say that there is no absolute truth: every truth so to speak is relative to the problem or questioning that made it possible in the first place (Bachelard already talks about this, especially through his concept of "phenomenotechnique", which argues that facts are not discovered, but invented, built and organized by our own concepts - even the simplest of phenomenons require at least some work of interpretation). Foundationalists tend to believe that there is such a truth out there that is somehow disconnected from our own inquiries towards the world.
The pragmatic view of truth understands that all our concepts are both culturally and historically situated. There is no such thing as "the reality", unsubmitted to time, pure and devoid of any interference from our own limited perspective, because reality is essentialy our conceptually mediated relation to the world. That applies, and that is the main argument here, to the very concept of truth that foundationalists so fiercely defend: they can only defend this notion of infalible and indiferent truth, in fact, because in the first place they value stability and safety, otherwise they woudn't be so concerned in securing an inflexible path that would supposedly give us irrefutable access to reality - that is in itself a human problem. The ultimate goal of those who try to label pragmatism as "relativism" is to corner themselves into a self-evident intellectual and abstract hideout that would somehow shield them from any valid questioning, because God forbid we are proven wrong.
To quote the man himself: "if a pragmatist such as myself is asked what his criterion for truth is, all I can reply is: free discussion - socratic discussion between people who do their best to think of all possible alternatives and then go over the advantages and disavantages of each as concretely as possible" (he says this in his lecture posted here on this channel under the title "Ethics of Principle vs Sensitivity (Richard Rorty 1990)").
@@alanmonteiro2707
Thank you and @DaggerMan11 for your thoughtful replies. Guess I’d like pragmatists to formulate what “not everything goes” means. The response in critical thinking or logic courses for doubters of truth usually starts with statements like, “all truths are relative except this statement?”, “Washington D.C. is the capitol of the US” and “torture for fun is always wrong” which all seem correct to point out. I agree with both your comments, just think some qualifier is needed, but have no idea what that would be. I kinda go with smart philosophers have different opinions about this, the issue won’t be resolved soon, so will just have to struggle along with those two views in mind, which sounds like pragmatism.
@@lonelycubicle Well I suppose that the main thing is to understand what pragmatism is or what it proposes itself to be rather than trying to adjust it to a specific problem already demarcated beforehand, in which case we woudn't be trying to understand the pragmatist view, but only if it serves our purpose of answering this determined question, namely, "what is Truth?".
And the first point one should be aware when trying to understand the pragmatist take on philosophy, is comprehending that it is not a theory of truth. As a matter of fact, pragmatism (especially Rorty's) argues that the quest for Truth with a capital "T" is irrelevant and should be abandoned, because it has no utility in resolving our modern problems. Rorty says that we don't need to define truth, for we already know in our daily lives what it is, we use it constantly, so searching for this a-temporal concept is an obsolete and vain project that holds no servience in our attempt to reach a more democratic and egalitarian society, which is at its core, the main purpose of pragmatism (Rorty even frames it by assigning pragmatism as antiauthoritarianism).
One must also understand that Rorty is not invalidating the scientific endeavour. He is not questioning the validity of science in itself, but rather noting that even science moves through history as a collective and conventional investigation of the world, that is, it's an effort in socratic conversation through which we reach certain conclusions and agreements about certain aspects of reality (to quote Bachelard once more: "the man moved by the scientific spirit wishes to know, but only to, immediately, better question" - it's form his book "The formation of the scientific spirit"). The role of science is not to reach absolute truths, but to consistently and collectively understand our world in order to possibilitate a more democratic society.
Pragmatism in that sense is more a political view of human existence and the questions that it asks are not how to detain the purest and most stable and universal look on the world, but how to build a society that is more egalitarian and that diminishes suffering. It's important to emphasize that Rorty constantly talks about the possibility of a planet-wide democratic community.
I think this short video perfectly summarizes what Rorty thinks pragmatism is all about: th-cam.com/video/fQnxVlLqgeY/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=PhilosophyOverdose
Thanks for the upload. I think I've listened to this 3 times. It's a great discussion.
This channel is my favourite philosophy content channel. Stellar curation. Thank you so much.
this is gold, thank you so much!!!
Oh I just noticed the old philosophy overdose has been taken down D:
Best of luck in rebuilding this one! I love the content here
Oh! Thank you for putting this one back up! It’s one of my favorites. Do you still have the Conant lectures on skepticism where he talks about McDowell’s M&W and Putnam’s Dewey Lectures?
Yes, they will be coming back, new and improved in fact.
@@Philosophy_Overdose Wow! Thank you so much! I’m excited to hear them!.
Thanks again, @Philosophy Overdose. Regarding Science, I think I am generally on the side of Putnam and Conant as more representative of the classical pragmatists. I found Rorty's view appealing only insofar that it shattered our confidence in discovering the right description of facts. Facts can be described in many different ways and the one we choose, or are compelled to assume on the grounds of preexisting frameworks, is of no special importance. Still, I think as Conant and Putnam, that consensus is not the only element important here, and that experience is a must. Although many alternative views might be equally fitted to certain reality, many others are certainly excluded by experience (experiment, observation, etc). Once a community has accepted the facts from experience, it cannot form consensus on a view that contradicts them, and if it does, the consensus cannot be called rational.
I like the way one of comments from the public boiled down the differences between James and Pierce to the (ir)relevance of progress in our working definition of a true description of something. Actually, I don't see why one should take one and only one of such views independent on the kind of practice at hand. For instance, I see that progress is essential to Science. One can only be happy with James "it works" provisionally, and Pierce's "the most it works the more likely it be true" seems better suited. At difference with the case of Science, the case of believing in God seems to be a clear case where progress is irrelevant. If "it works" for you, it provides meaning to your life, it gives confidence or it releases you from harsh anguish, it is then as truth (for you) as any empirical or logical truth. Pierce refinement is not pertinent here. Moreover, the consensus as a further criteria for what's working is of relevance for Science and of no relevance whatsoever for the justification of an spiritual belief. There are other cases where I don't even see how pragmatists of any kind can approach the issue. Take morality, for instance. Crude recipes as "if it is works, then it is ok" or "the more it works, it is more likely to be ok" won't work for moral judgements. This like the case of spiritual beliefs can only be assessed by the moral judge (one can say that "it works" if it brings you to a peace of mind, for instance). However, unlike the case of a spiritual belief there is a pressing need of consensus in order that the moral judge preserve the peace of mind after being judged by others about any preceding moral judgement of his/her own. How a pragmatist can address ethics then?
@@Gabriel-pt3ci i think the phenomenon of error can clear up most of these issues. Whether something is an error depends on the one hand on the individual/community's assuage of justification, but it also depends on unforeseen factors that undermine one's beliefs once they act on them and encounter the unforeseen impediment to their project. This can be generalized from science to morality. A kind of progress of making more and more elaborate errors can also be formulated without requiring the pernicious idea of course approximation to complete description of all relevant facts. Hope that makes sense.
Pragmatism and Truth: Hilary Putnam, Richard Rorty, Jim Conant, the idea of Democracy is worth to be protected and defended. Agreement of holding fundamental principles as true, with experience come the reality and vision of a leader e.g having good judgment based on experience such as the long history of United States of America and the Women's intellectualism against Men's. Conceptualizing and thinking for oneself is
vital in participatory Democracy.
“What does a bean mean…? JIM? WHAT DOES A BEAN MEAN?!?!”
This is so good!!!!!
whoa its like two of the people from all in the family went on to do philosophy. i love this!
Wonderful
I think the MLK point actually swings in Rorty's favor. MLK was able to use concepts which the society already espoused and argued for extending them to a group not in their possession. People had been trying to persuade society of similar ideas for decades before MLK but MLK found himself in a society in which he was able to persuade enough people that we achieved change. Had he tried the same persuasion in a previous era or say in Nazi Germany he wouldn't have had the same success.
The point about jurors also doesn't land. All the jurors can do is make their judgement based on whether they found the arguments persuasive or not. The jurors are not being asked to determine the 3rd person truth, they are being asked from the available evidence and the criteria established by law is there sufficient justification for a conviction or not.
Exactly.
He might not have achieved success in Nazi Germany, but that's more a question of power rathan than validity/truth, because if he asserted the position in Nazi Germany, he would have been, nonetheless, correct. And under Rorty's criteria, it seems to me, since MLK wouldn't have persuaded most people, he might as well have been wrong, since I am not really sure what else counts for Rorty other than consensus. So unless you're saying that the only reason why MLK was right was because of the accidental factor of his being in the US rather than Germany, the point is still in Putnam's favor (he delineates this more extensively in his book Realism with a Human Face).
You're not exactly picking up on Rortys point. He is concerned with what is considered right, which is always a contested space. Even if some propositions are objectively true you would still need to convince others to follow them and simply stating X is true doesnt work. So in reality you can actually put aside the question of what moral statements are objectively true because you can talk about it till your blue in the face, as many philosophers have, and not get anywhere. So it isn't about what is right or wrong about MLK but what are the differences in the society between Nazi Germany or Jim Crow and the society in which MLK finally broke through (as he had many predecessors who were unable to). For me that is an area one can actually make progress in rather than if/what moral facts exist. @@udaykanungo4169
@@justinlevy274 But where is Putnam or any realist saying that simply stating X will work? The point under contention is whether even if one wants to convince other people to follow or accept certain things, what criteria should they examine, and should they appeal to? How exactly do you visualise that one can "convince others to follow X" if one can 'put aside' the question as to whether X has some validity or truth or not? That being right is a contested space doesn't mean 'anything goes'.
As to MLK and his predecessors not breaking through, again, as I said, that question turns more on the issue who had the power/agency in the society rather than whether they were right or wrong - they were as right and as just as MLK. Secondly, the differences in the society which finally led MLK to gain victory didn't happen passively - they happened again because people were constantly struggling to use the notion of truth/justice and indict the society on its present standards in a substantial way. In other words, the consensus turned around after the examination of whether these notions were upheld substantially, so it is emphatically not the case that (as you put it) 'you can't get anywhere' - they did get somewhere, and not by, as Conant said, just sitting around, asking repeatedly 'try X', waiting for their peers to be convinced.
Well generally facts should be readily demonstrable, if not to the public at large than at least to qualified experts. I need only to take you outside to convince you of the fact that it is raining. Studying history and anthropology, talking to your neighbors, or reading different ethical theories shows that morality is not like that at all, even to experts.
As to your contention of what should people appeal to - Rorty's contention is that it can't be 'moral facts'. Should moral facts even exist in some sense there is no use talking about them as even trained philosophers who study this their entire lives cannot agree after thousands of years of debate. It is unlikely that common citizens will all come to agree on what those facts are as well.
Take the community vs individual trade-off issue, often the rights of the community and rights of individuals will come into conflict, what is the moral fact of where that line should be drawn? Or is it that some people value community more and some people value individualism more and that the society ends up as some kind of weighted average of the two? Or take the criminal punishment for stealing, what is the moral fact of what is an appropriate punishment? In some societies they may have killed them or cut off their hand, other elements (at least in some of todays society) thinks thieves should not be punished at all. And there is a whole range of options in the middle.
As to MLK, obviously I was not saying 'you cannot get anywhere' regarding society changing its tastes, it was 'you cannot get anywhere' regarding the moral fact of the matter. If you look at the period in question there was a continuum of opinions on the matter, some were regressive, some for very light reform, moderate reform, extreme reform, others wanting some kind of revolution. MLK was able to make an appeal broad enough to martial enough social forces for some kind of change to be made. Perhaps it is a moral fact that MLK should have pushed further or that MalcomX was right. I know who I agree with but I cant point to anything that makes it an independent fact of the world.
No one, including Rorty is saying that people sit passively by. What MLK did is exactly what Rorty advocates which is why the MLK point goes in his favor. MLK made a broad appeal that lots of people could get behind. Perhaps some splinter movement was actually morally exactly correct but they lost out to MLK. Everyone puts their moral views into the world through actions, conversation, voting and so on. To enact change do as MLK did and make the appeal broad enough to bring enough people in to actually make a change. As for 'not anything goes' I mean if you look at history clearly just about anything can go. Within a particular society typically not anything can go as you must contend with the power of the rest of society but you can make whatever appeal you want to but you have to see how the rest of society responds. They may agree or exile you, or worse, regardless of whether something was a moral fact or not.
As to criteria for your own ethical framework, its a bit of a difficult subject if you look into 'the problem of the criterion'. What criteria do you have for establishing criteria and so on and so on. Most people pick it up from the people they are around. You can expose yourself to multiple ethical thinkers but its not clear why one person reads Aristotle (or Kant or whatever) and thinks hes nailed it and another person thinks its muck. Every group can list out what they think the moral facts are but those lists would all contradict and you agreeing with one of the lists or not is just a reflection of your own values and way of thinking but not about any kind of moral fact of the world.
@@udaykanungo4169
Well, it seems the footnote to Plato reached ts end with Rorty.
Good
6:01 better meaning that there is more heuristic and instrumental value in a method toward the original goal
conant is extremely sharp
Conant? I am not sure about that.
Top 🌹
37:47 but aren't we talking about difference of rhetorical strategy rather than people adopting and utilizing pragmatism. Why can't someone be a pragmatist in the Rorty sense of word while using moral objectivism as a rhetorical strategy to motivate the minds of the people toward a social vision?
Exactly, it may well be as Conant was getting at, that concepts like truth and justice, or as you say moral objectivism are useful terms when trying to change society.
Wonder how Rorty would respond to the answer that a White Nationalist would give to someone telling them about their dream for a multicultural democracy free from racial hierarchy? Sometimes, your dystopia is someone else's utopia.
Good
Rorty is so funny
It’s nice of Conant to come out an proclaim his dedication to sophistry
What a great conversation. Relates to my research in psychometrics. It looks like what we call "true" may not be that, or anything. Absolutely pragmaticly, or sarcastically, could it be just means to publish an academic paper?
Why are we calling Rorty a pragmatist, of he's going to dismiss the foundations of pragmatism?
Also, how can he call himself a philosopher if he dismisses the idea of truth? What, is "the truth" that the truth doesn't exist? That's nonsense.
worth distinguishing between Truth with capital T and truths as certain descriptions of linguistic utterances and practices associated with them. It is also worthwhile to actually read Rorty in order to actually understand what he's talking about, rather than assuming you "get it".
@@kvaka009 That's the point: he's saying that the "Capital T" Truth is that the "Capital T" Truth doesn't exist, which is a contradiction, which means his "philosophy" is bogus.
@@infinitum8558 he's not saying that. He's saying it isn't a useful concept over and above truths. Of which, what he is saying is one, truth; among many possible others. Read and do the work my friend.
It isn't prapatism a form of skepticism in a way?
It would be much appreciated if you could help me understand the following:
Is it this pragmatism argument that is the basis for the man made climate change conclusion?Because applying a strictly scientific argument I see many unknowns in the logic and I never understood the basis on which the conclusion and consensus was reached.
Thank you, as I see many significant deleterious implications from accepting and acting upon this conclusion as if it were empirical fact.
No not at all. Of course there are always going to be uncertainties with something as complex as the climate, but that doesn't change the scientific fact that human carbon emissions are currently having a substantial impact on the climate. That's just the basic science of the greenhouse effect that's been known for over a century now, combined with the well-established correlation between human emissions since the start of the industrial revolution and an unprecedentedly rapid rise in average global temperatures during the same time period. Sure you can try to find loopholes in the science if your politics prevents you from accepting this conclusion. But in reality it is failing to act on this conclusion that is the deleterious thing here.
@@TotalitarianDemocrat As a scientist I honestly don’t see a verified cause and effect relationship. I’ve looked very closely and carefully, I only see the warming output verified.
It’s a basic principle of science that you don’t confuse correlation with causation, I just wondered if it were an example of pragmatism in action because I don’t understand what else it could be, as it’s not science.
@@yp77738yp77739 Science is not about verifying cause and effect relationships, because as Hume showed you can never really do that. You just have to ask what the best explanation for a given correlation is. How else could we have evidence for anything and make predictions based on that evidence if you can always just go "correlation doesn't equal causation"? What is really unscientific would be to just observe the correlation without asking why that correlation even obtains at all. I mean why do you think we don't all just freeze to death because of the sun's energy escaping back into space, if not for our atmosphere and the greenhouse effect it creates? If so then it stands to reason that, if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, you will increase the average temperature, producing exactly the sort of correlation we see according to the data.
@@TotalitarianDemocrat But equally we know that as temperature increases there is an increased release of CO2, particularly from marine sinks of carbon. Cause and effect has very definitely not been verified, I’d argue that given the climate complexity it never can be verified using the current limitations of modelling.
My fundamental concern is that temperature is rising and we know that the major impact will be water level rising. When we have finite resources, it is illogical to direct those resources to mitigate an unproven cause when there remains a possibility that it will have zero impact on the outcome. Did you notice any impact on global temperatures during the covid pandemic when there was a sub stained and massive decrease in global CO2 output, that’s because there wasn’t a change in trend, most importantly you didn’t even see a significant change in atmospheric CO2. According to NASA a global 8% reduction in emissions, but atmospheric CO2 stayed exactly on trend. In fact verifying non anthropomorphic causation, for me that sealed the issue and yet it’s not even mentioned in the media.
Far more logical to direct those resources to mitigate against the verified and deleterious effect, ie water level rises.
I can’t understand why others can’t see that is the only sensible option until we can be sure of the cause. The flapping around we are doing at the moment will do nothing but guarantee future disaster for those that survive us.
47:25 well what this vocabulary is
she cuts him off about the gypsy - so i'm back to the velvet underground back to the floor that i love to a room with some lace and paper flowers back to the gypsy that i was to the gypsy that i was - and you see your gypsy
Sorry I can't remember which guest commented on racism Not only do the comments seem out of place they seem stereo typically one sided Is there no difference between men and women are some races of people perhaps, as a group, permanently damaged from repressive experience etc We are not all the same
23:13 - 23:53 this will never happen though, and it only seems to be getting worse, at least in a U.S context. "And they vote their prejudices all through their lives." Sounds about right sadly.
Rorty has an uncanny ability to take an idea that so many people find objectionable, i.e. that the pursuit of "Truth" is a fool's errand, and make it seem as obvious as the day is long. Meanwhile, I've never heard a critique of Rorty's points that amounts to anything more than a complaint that people can't be trusted. Well...other people, anyway.
I kind of agree that it is a fools errand in a sense. I used to think that the pursuit of truth was necessary and it should be something that all people should care about it in order to live the best life possible. However once I started to understand classical skepticism I started to ask myself: well now what?
Also what do you mean by other complaints saying that people can't be trusted? Are you talking about how a moral objectivist claims to source their morals in something outside of human invention or something beyond human, therefore it can be trusted?
@@_VISION. Conant says he thinks "Rorty gives up too much" in his dismissal of truth. Conant then goes on to imply that maybe the civil rights movement, which is obviously good, wouldn't have happened if there were no appeals to "Truth." To which Rorty replies, "yeah, or maybe it would have happened just the same by simply appealing to solidarity." People who argue with Rorty always sound to me like Conant, saying that people can't be trusted to do right by each other unless they are beaten over the head by "Truth." And, of course, he knows what it is, because he's a Good Guy, so his beatings improve morale.
@@ericb9804 I agree with that. Conants positions reminds me of Jordan Petersons. I would imagine he would respond in the same way. I think people like Conant don't actually understand Rorty. The way he responded or refuted makes me think that he forgot important features of what Rorty is trying to propose. Thanks for the clarification
Rorty, to me, seems to be one of the few philosophers to have worked through the trauma of Truth soberly, without resort to rhetorical games. His irreverence irritates other philosophers because their status, and self-image, has long depended on a putative unique access to Truth. Rorty must be respected above all else for his being a genuinely atheist philosopher.
I laughed every time she clips to 'break' once the statements get racey and then hops back on progressive rails upon return..🤫
What a difference. Nowadays women would feel insecure and NOT sound like this at all. She was composed, normal, professional and mature. What the hell is wrong with society nowadays ?
fellatiating comments are purchased. Nobody.. very few speak or even write in this manner. Even an understudy would comment with something more meaningful than "oh what a gem"; I'm excited about this upload".. Seriously these are a priori facade🤣🤣🤡.