When I was an undergraduate, one of my advisors suggested "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" to me, and I read it, but I think I was too young to fully appreciate it. Time to read it again! Thanks!
16:39 they should also look into getting diagnosed for OCD if they find it that debilitating, in fact I think most philosophy enthusiasts or majors should probably get checked for OCD and ADHD and Autism, I've noticed these are super common amongst philosophy dorks including myself, and arguably certain famous philosophers
Thank you for the wonderful show. Would you turn the volume up than this? I listen to Philosophize This in the subway and sometimes the sound is not big enough to listen in the subway or in a place where some noise is. Anyway I'm big fan of the show. Thanks for making this
Wonderful show! As usual.... The saddest thing about language is that it gives a level playing field to everyone. So a fascist has the same access to the world through language as those fighting against it. One idea is as valid/invalid as another. Hegel knew this and suffered great bouts of depression because of it. The postmodern message: Truth is a construct; all is relative; all is text.... Now we must decide how to live without any references.
Beautiful thoughts. I'm not sure of the utility of ironic disruption, however, unless the other person's final vocabulary is having some "negative" effect. There sometimes seems to be an existential benefit from having a solidified final vocabulary, and to disrupt this in a person seems... mean... especially if that person's final vocabulary is having no negative effect. Perhaps it's best to deploy this tactic when the other person's final vocabulary is having a negative effect? You can find different ways of connecting with people without having your foundations made fluid.
Rorty claims that metaphysicians are more likely to be perpetrators of large scale violence than ironists. Though he's also quick to say that obviously not all metaphysicians are doing harm. I think his point is that if you interact often enough with intelligent, well-intended, well-informed people who hold different foundations than you, there's a better chance your own may become more fluid. But certainly there's a consolatory comfort in basing your opinions on tradition and authority instead of being an ironist.
He draws much from Contingency, Irony and Solidarity and possibly "Objectivity, Relativism and Truth" (the introduction is worth the price of the book). Also try "Philosophy and Social Hope"
There's something kind of empty in his philosophy for me. This isn't helped by his "ironic disruption," which seems quite close to "raise an eyebrow at people's opinions, they'll feel dumb soon enough". I am not sure how he can make statements that do have an ethical push to them (talking about solidarity, or urging people to stop attempting to access rigid "Truth" because it causes harm to people). How can we agree that we shouldn't harm people or agree that society should exist at all when our only value seems to come from rhetoric/narrative? He seems to see society and the prevention of harm as a priori ethical values, while arguing against the possibility of such universal values.
@@transom2 i wouldnt even say that. in his essay "Wittgenstein and the linguistic turn, he intentionally misinterpreted Wittgensteins philosophy in a way that would suit his "cultural politics". He also declared that the linguistic turn is dead. I think he's wrong about that, and based on this vid i think he's wrong on most matters
Rorty's point is just to say that there is no "foundation" from which to shutdown debate on questions like "why is slavery bad?" So then, what do we have? We have a community of people with similar values as ourselves. This is Rorty's "ethnocentrism".
How did we end slavery? People read about for the lived experiences of former slaves as well as their conditions and recognised their suffering, those people came together and decided that slavery was cruel. This led them to legislate against it.
I absolutely loved the show today.
When I was an undergraduate, one of my advisors suggested "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" to me, and I read it, but I think I was too young to fully appreciate it. Time to read it again! Thanks!
Well that was just excellent.
16:39 they should also look into getting diagnosed for OCD if they find it that debilitating, in fact I think most philosophy enthusiasts or majors should probably get checked for OCD and ADHD and Autism, I've noticed these are super common amongst philosophy dorks including myself, and arguably certain famous philosophers
Bravo!!
Mom can i have nietzsche?
No, we have nietzsche at home.
Nietzsche at home: Rorty
Watching this on 9/11/23
Great video,thx! Still have his 'philosophy and the mirror of nature' lying around, this gives me the motivation to read it.
I absolutely love your channel! Please keep going ☺️
If you have no none circular way of defending your world view as better then why is rorty capable of giving us an "antidote" to anything?
“Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.” (starting at 20:03). Based on what if correspondence theory is not true?
Not "based on what if correspondence theory is not true". Based on that is all we can say about the word 'true'.
@@WhiskyDogJack
Thanks, I’ll read the book you suggested at the other comment.
Thank you for the wonderful show. Would you turn the volume up than this? I listen to Philosophize This in the subway and sometimes the sound is not big enough to listen in the subway or in a place where some noise is. Anyway I'm big fan of the show. Thanks for making this
Thank you!
Hooray for knowledge!
Man, Rorty was awesome.
Wonderful show! As usual.... The saddest thing about language is that it gives a level playing field to everyone. So a fascist has the same access to the world through language as those fighting against it. One idea is as valid/invalid as another. Hegel knew this and suffered great bouts of depression because of it. The postmodern message: Truth is a construct; all is relative; all is text.... Now we must decide how to live without any references.
But that isn't what this episode on Rorty is about, right?
you are so wrong, Truth isnt just a construct
Beautiful thoughts. I'm not sure of the utility of ironic disruption, however, unless the other person's final vocabulary is having some "negative" effect. There sometimes seems to be an existential benefit from having a solidified final vocabulary, and to disrupt this in a person seems... mean... especially if that person's final vocabulary is having no negative effect. Perhaps it's best to deploy this tactic when the other person's final vocabulary is having a negative effect? You can find different ways of connecting with people without having your foundations made fluid.
Rorty claims that metaphysicians are more likely to be perpetrators of large scale violence than ironists. Though he's also quick to say that obviously not all metaphysicians are doing harm.
I think his point is that if you interact often enough with intelligent, well-intended, well-informed people who hold different foundations than you, there's a better chance your own may become more fluid. But certainly there's a consolatory comfort in basing your opinions on tradition and authority instead of being an ironist.
How do you not see the utility of disarming dogmatists?
Thank you so so so much for this!
Sure ... makes sense.
Rorty was the coolest monotone guy ever.
Script will be more helpful for non English people to understand perfectly.
Great video
The correspondence theory of truth is fundamentally flawed.
The ugly truth.
Never heard of him but sounds interesting. What book is this podcast referring to by Rorty?
He draws much from Contingency, Irony and Solidarity and possibly "Objectivity, Relativism and Truth" (the introduction is worth the price of the book). Also try "Philosophy and Social Hope"
There's something kind of empty in his philosophy for me. This isn't helped by his "ironic disruption," which seems quite close to "raise an eyebrow at people's opinions, they'll feel dumb soon enough".
I am not sure how he can make statements that do have an ethical push to them (talking about solidarity, or urging people to stop attempting to access rigid "Truth" because it causes harm to people). How can we agree that we shouldn't harm people or agree that society should exist at all when our only value seems to come from rhetoric/narrative? He seems to see society and the prevention of harm as a priori ethical values, while arguing against the possibility of such universal values.
🙏😊
pragmatism, basically. the summary of language is ok.
Basically pyrrhonism
Rorty is one of the most overrated of our time
Based on this excellent video, it would seem that Rorty is a gifted explainer but not one for solutions.
@@transom2 i wouldnt even say that. in his essay "Wittgenstein and the linguistic turn, he intentionally misinterpreted Wittgensteins philosophy in a way that would suit his "cultural politics". He also declared that the linguistic turn is dead. I think he's wrong about that, and based on this vid i think he's wrong on most matters
Critical theory 👎
So what's wrong with slavery, Rorty?
Rorty's point is just to say that there is no "foundation" from which to shutdown debate on questions like "why is slavery bad?" So then, what do we have? We have a community of people with similar values as ourselves. This is Rorty's "ethnocentrism".
How did we end slavery? People read about for the lived experiences of former slaves as well as their conditions and recognised their suffering, those people came together and decided that slavery was cruel. This led them to legislate against it.
@@WhiskyDogJack rorty offers nothing but pointless relativism
@@WhiskyDogJack Relativistic mumbo jumbo, not helping anybody's "community".
@@kassendek4777 Your assumption that suffering is bad is a silly assertion