Richard Rorty vs Hilary Putnam on Language & Reality
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2023
- A few clips of Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam discussing Richard Rorty. Check out their conversation together on truth and pragmatism with James Conant: • Pragmatism & Truth - R...
#Philosophy #Rorty #Putnam #Postmodernism
![ใจดำกับฉันก่อน - วงทัพห้า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I48wa4qurAU/mqdefault.jpg)
The pure joy in Putnam is priceless
As extreme Rorty's boundary pushing was, I still think he was mostly right and it's hard to dismiss his criticisms of contemporary Western philosophy. Putnam as well stood out as someone who's willing to go places others wouldn't with utmost intellectual integrity. That's also why he was his own biggest opponent, besides Rorty of course. Both are some of the greatest influences on me and countless others
From now on, when I read Putnam, I will imagine him chuckling at his own wittiness.
Hey, please consider making a video on three philosophers from Miletus. It would be really interesting to learn about them, thank you
Putnam never understood that being compelled by your natural psychology to believe certain things or live in certain ways does not refute pragmatism or skepticism. You can be a pragmatist or skeptic and live exactly how Putnam lived. Hume argued that you have no choice but to do so. Nature compels us to believe certain things or live as if we believe them, whether we believe in them philosophically or not.
What is this "nature" that "compels" us? Is it somehow acting like it possesses some kind of agency? How do we know the "compelling"?
Yes
Yes, it certainly seems like tables and chairs are real things outside ourselves, but so what? The pragmatist point is that we don't need to insist that this "appearance of reality" is the foundation of epistemology; i.e. that we can speak solely in terms of justification and let reality take care of it itself. And simply by choosing a different vocabulary to describe our condition, we can improve the relationships between people without sacrificing anything about what we "know."
Ok
Dont worry. I agree.
Pretty wild that someone who thinks language is marks and noises we experience internally to cope with the world in the pursuit of happiness would willingly go by the name Dick 😂
Putnam is assuming a Cartesian worldview -- a mind isolated from an external world. For Putnam, language is how Mind connects with the World, by representing it.
When Rorty says language does not represent Reality but it is only marks and noises, for Putnam that severs this connection between Mind and World. And this is where Putnam accuses Rorty of solipsism.
But Rorty is not a solipsist. Because Rorty is not making these Cartesian assumptions from the get-go, as Putnam is doing.
Please stop, Rorty fanboy. Read some actual philosophers.
Putnam is possibly the anti-thesis to Cartesianism, this is why he is so opposed to “mentalism of the mit variety” aka Chomsky and Fodor. Putnam’s twin earth experiment and the externalist arguments are most well known anti Cartesian anti mentalist arguments in twentieth century philosophy.
What Putnam calls common sense realism, is developed in his book, “threefold cord” and John Dewey lectures, here he rejects what you are accusing him of, that language represents the external world. He jettisons the need for representation and develops and defends a every day realist picture.
Now it happens that he was completely wrong, but rorty is simply wrong.
He hasn‘t a Cartesian Worldview. He sees the mind mostly as a system of world-involving abilities and their exercises. That is what he says is one of his conclusions of when he argued that reference isn‘t fixed by description or definition, but determined by our environment.
This is where he interprets Rorty as a Kantian or Cartesian: For Rorty it seems to be a problem that a tree doesn‘t tell you that he is an instance of the concept of a tree. Our productive activity of out mind is necessary so that such a concept or „marks and noises“ is possible. But this would either make the structurally unconceptualizes world inaccessible or presuppose a mirror picture or what Putnam calls an „interface picture“ between the knower and „everything outside of us“. Rorty seems to use the presupposition to deny it and to argue that the external world is inaccessible, while Putnam seems to deny the presupposition to argue that we have a direct access to the world
@@Rudi361 Rorty is a Davidsonian. He does not think the inner world/external world distinction is a useful distinction. Putnam does assume this distinction, so his criticisms of Rorty beg the question.
@@barnabybaxter What Putnam is saying in this video is that only if you make a dichotomy between inner mind and external world you can come to the conclusion that we can‘t have access to the unconceptualized world with our concepts. That is the mirror image Rorty is attacking. If he wouldn‘t see the dichotomy as useful he wouldn‘t use it to deny the access to the unconceptualized external world. That is why Putnam also doesn‘t believe in it, mind externalism and direct realism as Putnam defends it sees the mind not a closed interface, but as open to the environment. In this sense is mind a world-involving ability: Our thoughts about water refer to H2O, even if we didn‘t know that Water is H2O, at least if we interact with water by having beliefs about it that may be wrong.
How are languages translatable?
Because of similarities in the life form.
@@FroggyTheGroggy Do you think we can translate languages from other species? Does that make a difference or would we just be sufficiently similar? You don't think there is a universality to adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc?
@@FroggyTheGroggy Are you a Phish fan?
The question isn't "How are languages translatable?" but rather "What makes us think our attempt at translation was a success?"
Its the extent to which the speakers of the two languages agree their goals are being met. Which is the same way we know all other examples of communication are successful. The extent to which there is a "universality to adjectives, nouns, verbs, etc," if any, does not need to be explained by appeal to a "reality." Its enough to just acknowledge that the goals of the speakers align well enough to cooperate.
@@ronpaulrevered everything can be expressed through a rule, so yes, id say everything can be translated into another language.
Cope with what ? Cope with your own sense data ? No, cope with the real world -- aka Reality !
"...which language serves what human purpose best." So we can get it wrong. And if we can be mistaken about such a thing, then we don't know everything that can be known, which yet remains to be or not to be discovered. Realism vindicated! But seriously, where did this false and pernicious antagonism between pragmatism and realism originate? It can't just be from postmodernist readings of Dewey and James.
but how are we to know when we "get it wrong?" Aren't you just implying that we would be using some other list of "marks and noises" to further some other "human purpose?" How do you not realize that you are just begging the question?
The pragmatist acknowledges that it certainly seems like "reality is really real," and there is no harm in colloquially speaking in such terms. And yet, there is no reason to insist that this "appearance of reality" must be the foundation of epistemology. We can speak only in terms of "justification" and let "reality" take care of itself.
The reason we would want to do this is for the reminder that humans don't, indeed can't, stand in relation to the non-human. We only stand in relation to each other. To think otherwise is to become corrupted by the allure of "objectivity" for the purpose of using it as a weapon against other people.
@@ericb9804 Well, presumably we know that we got it wrong when our goals haven't been achieved. Further, one could have an aim and not know that the method that one is employing to satisfy it will work out (it's one thing to have a desire, and quite another to know how to satisfy it). That would imply that there are things unknown, or perhaps even unknowable. This is a realist epistemological tenet. Where exactly does this beg the question?
And it doesn't seem like we can only speak in terms of justification and let truth sort itself out...THAT can't even be expressed coherently without a nod toward Truth/truth or whatever you want to call objectivity...LOL! It's hopelessly self contradictory.
But seriously, there is no fundamental antagonism between realism and pragmatism (e.g., Putnam). I don't believe that Peirce, James, or Dewey considered themselves antirealists in any contemporary notion of the concept. But importantly, they each had substantive disagreements about what pragmatism meant as well as having significant overlapping commitments. Do you have any source material or reasoning that would suggest that pragmatism rules out realism about the external world that isn't based on Rorty's or other postmodernist interpretations?
@@Khuno2 I agree that pragmatism is not the same as anti-realism. However, the pragmatist does doubt that there is any value in trying to tell the difference between realism and anti-realism in the first place - the fact that we still argue about it is evidence that we can't tell the difference between them, which is what should tip us off that the difference, if any, doesn't matter. Its a pseudo-problem that is not worth wasting out time on - like all philosophical "problems," it can never be "solved," but only "dissolved" by realizing its lack of importance.
Because, at any given moment, we know of what we are convinced, and why. We can speak only in those terms, in terms of evidence and justification without sacrificing anything of the epistemology we already use. Insisting on "realism" doesn't give us anything that we don't already have by ignoring it.
The pragmatist's point is that metaphysics in general, and "objectivity" in particular only serve to drive a wedge between us. Arguments are not actually solved by appealing to metaphysics. No one is ever convinced by someone saying "I'm right because I correspond to reality and you don't." That's just silly. Arguments are actually solved by appealing to other people - i.e by convincing them that their notion of evidence and/or justification should change.
If you can't do that, then so be it. Either you keep trying or you agree to disagree. And yet neither of you has, let alone "needs," any claim to knowing what is "real."
A statement like, "the only truth is there is no truth" is "hopelessly self-contradictory," and yet, still meaningful at conveying an idea, namely the idea that language is a tool we use to help us understand our situation, but not necessarily what is " objectively real." To claim that a statement like "the only truth is there is no truth" is meaningless BECAUSE it is "hopelessly self contradictory" is merely to insist upon exactly the metaphysics that are in question, namely the extent to which language "corresponds" to reality.
@@ericb9804 Dewey's discourse on the mechanics of inquiry, and the objectivity that obtains upon the resolution of inquiry would suggest the opposite: that pragmatism is sensitive to the distinction between knowledge and belief, appearance/reality--and that there is a great deal of value in these "silly" distinctions. It sure seems like people spend a lot of time on truth talk for such a silly and unimportant topic, but I don't need to tell you that.
We agree that consensus is important in political and interpersonal spheres, and that truth is often unconvincing in resolving disputes. Truth has little to do with contemporary political discourse, for example. But that's a grim and cynical vice, not a virtue that should be celebrated and encouraged. A critical failure of public policy debate and how it's framed shouldn't be used as an endorsement of the irrelevance of truth... Rather, the mindset that it's all marketing and that the truth doesn't matter is the belief that should be resisted for the unpredictable and often dire consequences. .
The irony of your rejection of metaphysics is that it relies so heavily upon that selfsame metaphysics (in this case, the notion of representational truth) that it seemingly blinds you to such a reliance. When made aware of it you suggest that the contradictions express less controversial ideas should at least give you pause... You're not merely saying that language is a tool that does not necessarily represent the way things are (not very controversial), but rather that language is just a tool that helps us cope and that we necessarily cannot know objective truth (except for that). Those are big metaphysical and epistemological commitments. Characterizing a reliance non-contradiction as dubious "metaphysics" doesn't help things... Metaphysics seems rather indispensable. And if we're stuck with it, we might as well work to make sure that it's as useful and accurate as possible (e.g., is informed by a modern notion of science and practice).
@@Khuno2 We've had this discussion before and its like we are talking about two different Rortys. Have you ever actually ready anything by Rorty? Here are some short videos:
th-cam.com/video/fQnxVlLqgeY/w-d-xo.html - "we can tell you about justification, we can't tell you anything about truth." Rorty's whole point is that the word "truth" is a word we can use, but not particularly helpful. While you continue to insist that Rorty is saying the exact opposite.
th-cam.com/users/shortsSTBxRa39BIM - "Truth is an idea we would be better off without."
th-cam.com/video/bH_bkTNh-bc/w-d-xo.html - "everything is what it is in virtue of its relation to everything else." Your insistence on metaphysics is kind of pathology.
th-cam.com/users/shortsozVRyZQZnwY - "philosophical problems are to be solved by understaning linguistic usage." See (1) below. (I think this video is AI generated, the quotes are correct)
I can provide several quotes from his writing as well if you like since I've actually read them and they are sitting here on my shelf.
"but rather that language is just a tool that helps us cope and that we necessarily cannot know objective truth (except for that). Those are big metaphysical and epistemological commitments." - NO, That is NOT an (1) "objective truth" NOR is it a (2) "metaphysical commitment."
(1) Your continued refrain that "there is no objective truth" is itself an "objective truth" betrays your lack of understanding of 20th century analytic philosophy, most notably Goedel and Tarski. A language of sufficient complexity is capable of expressing ideas in terms of paradox, and yet, those ideas can still be "true," (Goedel) but only in the sense that they are "useful," like all expressions of "truth," because "truth" can't be defined in the same language it is expressed (Tarski). This is how natural language works as further explained by people like Wittgenstein and Derrida. You are simply impressed by a naive tautology, not offering immanent criticism.
(2) Pragmatists simply describe what we actually do. We use language to achieve our goals. Full stop. There is nothing "metaphysical" about that observation. The pragmatist's point is that we don't need to go any further than this. We don't need to try and distinguish between "appearance" and "reality" or between "objective" an "subjective" or whatever other silly dichotomies have been passed down to us by well-intentioned philosophers of the past.
Yes, there are many different "pragmatists," each with their own flavor, Dewey, James, Putnam, Habermas, Brandom, etc. But what unites them as pragmatists is their distrust of metaphysics, most notably any kind of explicit ontology that is to tell us "what is really real." Questioning metaphysics is not itself metaphysics.
Rorty is great at criticizing but everything he puts forward is basically garbage.
What a remarkably thoughtful comment
Lol
Marx annoys us. 4:40
Putnam is clearly embarrassed by Rorty's self-refuting nonsense.
Rorty is nonsensical? Saying that something is in the room is metaphysical lol. It's also built on a labyrinth of presuppositions. It's a claim to how things are, and even Wittgenstein would agree.
To take a Kantian view, that Putnam references, is the heart of the problem...to believe reality is mind-dependent is unliveable..hence the life insurance anecdote.
@@williamjason1583 And? That is merely a perspective? I can say that materialism is untenable if I take an idealist or vitalist stance?
@williamjason1583 Ever hear of Berkeley? His system is mind dependent and for the most part is sound. Of course you need to accept that a being outside your own mind gives your mind substance, but still.
It's perspective, and I personally take the view that if you speak a language, you are not escaping metaphysics
A pragmatist is someone who hides his own presuppositions from himself. A real purpose is one that exists, hence it is part of reality. No doubt language serves real purposes, including the purpose of describing the real nature of language. To say that language can only be understood in terms of serving some human purpose is a mere truism, because it is obvious that the actual usage of a word is what determines its meaning. To say that language does not describe reality contradicts (1) the claim that language serves real purposes; and (2) the claim that the real nature of language can only be understood in terms of serving real purposes.
Gobbledygook. Purpose is an empty notion. Language has a use, not a purpose. If it had a purpose, why do only humans have language? Simple, we found it useful, other animals didn't.
The claim language describes reality isn't at issue, assuming we can actually know reality based on our limited epistemic access, the question is whether a mere description can tell us what reality is as such. And that's a huge leap to make.
I don’t think someone like Rorty would really take issue with the notion of something like small-r reality, as we obviously have causally efficacious interactions with the world. The claim might be more accurately put: “language doesn’t describe Reality,” where Reality is some sort ontological entity/process that is neatly and self-evidently divisible into facts or complex states of affairs which are capable of regimented representation in language (e.g., the line of thought pursued by the early Wittgenstein). Rorty, I think, would say that surface-level (in terms of grammar) descriptions of the natural world and Reality (paradigmatically in the natural sciences, and physics) are caught up in patterns of institutional norms, which are oriented toward human happiness and preservation in myriad ways. The pragmatist would ask, what are we really DOING in the language game of what we take to be representation/description?
Brandom put the point nicely, contra Dewey and the classical pragmatists (Rorty would probably agree): language isn’t for anything in particular; I.e., it isn’t itself a tool. It is merely a significantly more sophisticated coping method that allows us coordinate local interactions among peers/allies. So, to say that the notion of purpose presupposes Reality might be missing his point. It certainly presupposes some sort of triangulation between the world of mid-sized dry goods, ourselves and other speakers or discursive practitioners.
@@amanuensis9873I don't believe any "Postmodernist" would say language doesn't describe reality. We just think it fails in describing reality.
Language is like error theoretic, you can attempt to describe the object "ball" as round, as bouncy, as rolly, etc. But that doesn't capture what the ball "is" merely describes it.
Then you have to determine well, is a bowling ball a ball? A billiard ball, a baseball? Is a rock a ball? No? What if it's a round and rolly rock? Is a manju bun a ball, it's also round and rolly.
You cannot exhaust reality with merely uttering a sound. That seems to be the point. More than that, Rorty in particular would've said that there are different kinds of languages applicable for different reasons. The language of the artist or poet may at times be more useful than the language of the physicist or philosopher. Can the physicist or philosopher describe what it is like to be a person? No, but the language of literature and poetry can.
@@TheMahayanist other animals don't use language or communicate?
@@TheMahayanist "The claim language describes reality isn't at issue" -That's exactly one of the things at issue.