The interviewer is Noëlle McAfee a philosopher, writer and professor at Emory University. She was arrested today protesting for gaza in solidarity with her students.
Agree. She asked questions that made him uncomfortable enough to clarify his positions, but not so uncomfortable that he walked out on the interview or something.
Great interview. I greatly admire his vision. C,I,&S was one of the most important books I read as a grad student. Love his work when I agree and when I don't, always provocative, making the rest of us think harder, which is what he probably would have wanted more than being "right" in some superficially "objective" way.
@@RestIsPhilosophyyes! he is complicated…he ranges from deeply expressing the Deweyan approach to apparently putting words in Dewey’s mouth that undermine the enterprise. Rorty must have been fascinating patient for therapy.
I just finished that Great Course and went out and bought the transcripts so I can go back, re-listen to it, and synthesize the heck out of that course lecture with interpretive notes (hermeneutics)
Sam Harris is philosophically irrelevant. He is an entertainer, writing popular philosophy books with no influence whatsoever on current academic philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, but he should not be compared to someone like Rorty.
@J W well said. I think Sam's views are not aging well, particularly as his friends on the left define moral truth as "agreement with them" -- anchored to almost nothing but power, control. Censorship and shaming are their favorite tools.
Interestingly labeled as 'comedy.' Rorty is hard medicine for most philosophers, because having read much of the canon he concludes that there are no formulas for producing great and true theories of the world, the human being or society. We're sort of winging it. That strikes many as the behavior of a spoiler-- a resignation of "the tradition." But this video is instructive because of the concrete examples (abortion, death penalty, women under the Taliban) that keep coming up. Philosophers have no better answers to those than anyone else. Philosophy can clarify the relations of concepts involved, perhaps, but the key point made here is that the traditioinal ("Plato to Kant") expectation that if people who disagree keep talking to each other in good faith they will converge on the 'best' answer which must be the *same* answer. This does not seem to play out in the sphere of politics, ethics etc . The question of truth in science being something other than just "narratives and stories we tell ourselves" (Rorty) and not provisional knowledge of the world is a tougher call. He seems at times to reject even Deweyan instrumenetalism in science, replacing warranted assertability with "coping" or "doing the best we can to get on," etc. (Putnam and Larry Hickman have both criticized him on that score).
With regard to your last sentence, I think Rorty would say that he replaced warranted assertability with coping or doing the best we can is because he is a pragmatist.
@@timothywise9731 Right. He thinks Dewey vacillates between pragmatism (e.g. Quest for Certainty) and a temptation to describe nature in metaphysical terms (e.g. Experience and Nature). He also denied that Putnam really left any room for either metaphysical or scientific realism, despite his own claims. Sarcastically, he once said, "if Putnam is a realist, then so am I." I think Putnam's hard to pin down on the issue, not least because he often revised his views. The older I get, the more I like Rorty's frankness about the empty conceits of philosophy.
I like his advise on stepping back from an objective claim to political truths and instead grounding arguments on facts and narratives. That can do American politics and politics in general a lot of good
Yes they do. But in social science it helps to not be absolute in categories. What he means is taking your political (ideological) opponents in good faith. And be modest and circumspect in your own claims..
I think people conform rather than confer. We need to redefine the roles we’ve created for people in society. The role the individual plays, the role the teacher plays or the parent or the official. We need to redefine these roles in a way that is more humane and functional to society. What we measure in society is what is killing us.
The problem _was_ the questions--the interviewer kept asking for absolute answers, objective yes/nos and rights/wrongs; that's apparently what you're looking for too. But Rorty spent his career telling us that we just don't get those, no matter how hard we try. They're a myth. Blindly stumbling after them, like that interviewer did and like you are, is foolish. For god's sake, go and read _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature._ It's not that hard, and shouldn't take you that long. And it'll help you understand why this interview sounded so odd, and why the problem was the (shockingly unfamiliar with Rorty's ideas) interviewer.
on Islamic enlightenment, ... Well we owe our knowledge of Aristotle to Muslim scholars who underwent multiple enlightenments in multiple countries... "stranger things have happened"... riiiiight
2:17 “Given that we’re American democrats, what would be the appropriate thing to say about traditional philosophical topics like truth, knowledge and rationality and so on.” Is he advocating that philosophy be the handmaiden of whatever the current regime is? Perhaps he would distinguish a philosopher from run of the mill defenders of the established order in that it is the true philosopher’s business to disabuse us about the possibility of attaining a _natural_ standpoint by which to judge the standpoints of the _conventional_ caves; that is, that ‘wisdom’ and ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ and even ‘nature’ are but idols of the Cave, and there is no ascent to an outside.
The Church Fathers had a similar starting point: They asked what could philosophy do for faith. (This is sarcasm, btw -- for anyone who doesn't get it)
Being on top is not merely a matter of being more educated than those on the bottom. For sure education is important, but so is the kind of education, the opportunities available for careers, promotions, wage or salary increases, investments, one's connections (or lack thereof), political maneuvering, shrewdness, entrepreneurship, original social status, race, class, gender, work ethic, competition (or lack thereof), risk management, actual desire to compete and become powerful and/or wealthy, luck... To simply say that those on the top tend to be more educated than those on the bottom, and to imply that these more educated people at the top are more 'open-minded' -- and make no mistake, what she means is they are more enlightened and therefore more moral -- on such things as the death penalty is elitism at its worst. Actually, what it takes to get to the top has less to do with education than it does with being heartless and shrewd.
17:47 Human history is also a matter of theory. Plus historical facts are only used to build up other theories, not to mention the fallacy of a unilinear history...
Of course more people in the UK wanted to reinstate the death penalty after 20 years of Thatchernomics/austerity. As the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, the generalized pain and frustration looks for scapegoats. Since the death penalty does not reduce murder rates, there is no scientific basis for the stated justification of the death penalty. But when the large majority of people are feeling pain and helpless, they desire an outlet for their feelings of anger and frustration.
How do we make the judgement that a person can be ahead of the times if ethics is merely the situational product of our cultures? In other words, don’t we need an external criteria besides the conventions of our own culture in order to make criticism of that culture possible, dare I say even sensible? I think that while professor Rorty is very right to say that in practice most people operate on the level of culturally informed moral intuitions, I don’t see it as being proved that these intuitions are necessarily determinative, either in ethics or in practice. Within Rorty’s framework, how can we make sense of progress as a concept of truth is relative and morality is merely a product of circumstances?
Jefferson, Christ, King, etc. were all "ahead of their time" in the sense that now, looking back, most of us agree with them more than with the people they were arguing with at the time. I suppose we don't have to call this "progress" if we don't' want to, but it doesn't seem there is any harm in doing so either, for it certainly feels like "progress" to us.
@ Why should it matter whether this “feels” like progress to us? This seems like a way of privileging our historical standpoint with a moral authority without actually providing a rationally defensible explanation for that authority. If we are to give ourselves the authority to make that judgement, we then require a trans-historical standard by which we can say that our modern sensibilities are capable of judgment. Otherwise, we are simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions without actually engaging in the practice of philosophy.
@@joshcotlar2099 It "feels like progress" in the sense that we would rather live in this society than the one that Jefferson, or Christ, or King were reacting against. We are saying something like "those people were more like us than their contemporaries and we now live in a society more like the one they were advocating for, which is so much the better for us." Although yes, any given person is free to disagree with whether or not this is "progress." But I don't see why we shouldn't use the word "progress" to describe our feeling of living in a society we are more happy with than some other example from the past. Rorty's whole point is that we can still use words like "progress" to describe our attempt to "make things better" without invoking some kind of "trans-historical standard," but rather just our agreement that we are glad we no longer keep slaves, for example. Yes, there is a sense in which we are "simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions,' but so what? Why shouldn't we allow ourselves to do that? It sounds like you want philosophy to be exactly the sound and fury that Rory warns us about.
@@ericb9804 I would argue that the deeper problem here is conveying a sense of moral authority to what is broadly assented to in society, and what is I think actively dangerous in Rorty’s reasoning is the complacency by which he refers to this assent as “progress”. Perhaps this view appears a anachronistic to Rorty, but I find his constant conflation of what is with what ought to be to be far more dubious than appeals to transhistorical standards. By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself. If anything, Rorty’s view approaches something akin to a complacent nihilism, one which not only does not believe we can provide a rational account of how we ought to live with ourselves in relation with one another, but one which actively relishes this supposed fact. If one is to be honest with the implications of the death of “truth” in the abstract or with the impossibility of a real, logically defensible account of what is right in actuality, then it makes far better sense to simply go with Nietzsche’s line of reasoning that “progress” as a concept is a fantasy and that what is “right” is completely at the whim of subjective preference, reducible to the will to power. Nietzsche believed that we ought instead to create our own values according to these preferences, and that this creative approach could provide a newly redeeming experience for life. Yet, he himself could not handle this perspective on life, and as a consequence, gradually went insane as a result his philosophy of creative destruction-precisely because what it means to be human is the wish to have a higher significance in life. In fairness to Rorty, we would perhaps be happier to become complacent in believing that our culture’s values and way of life is indeed “right” and “progressive” simply by being our own. Yet, one can only adopt this position by first coming to an absolute state of nihilism, and then after this fact, to be capable of the utmost dishonesty with ourselves. If Nietzsche’s approach drove him to madness, then Rorty’s seems to drive us toward complacency and philosophical suicide. All this is to say, there are actually tremendous stakes to developing and believing in the possibility of a rational defense of the good life qua man, not simply in the parochial or culturally relative sense but in the actual and ideal sense. Socrates was not a fool, we require a vision of what can be to sustain human life, one which is believed for its own sake and purpose. If this view seems unfashionable-so be it! The unfashionable does not equal the immoral or the unreasonable. If anything, views that are common are popular precisely because they appeal to the lowest common denominator, to our collective ignorance, to conformism and consumerism, breeding what Thoreau aptly referred to as a state of resignation by which “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” So in a sense yes, I wholeheartedly adopt the perspective that Rorty took to be all that is wrong with philosophy. I do so gladly and instead turn the tables around and pronounce, J’Accuse!
@@joshcotlar2099 "By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself. " - Yes. Buts thats exactly what we experience, isn't it? Which is why it seems curiously pointless to complain about it. Better to just accept it and do the best we can, I say. It sounds to me like you are just complaining that you don't like being reminded that your positions are no more certain than those you oppose, but rather than face this face this for what it appears to be, you would rather pretend that you have some access to some "truth" that other people don't have, by way of your "philosophy" or "religion" or "reason" or whatever and that gives you the right to tell them what to do, for their own good, of course. How convenient for you. Yes, the stakes are indeed high, but there is nothing "fashionable" about any of this. Besides, even if there were, that is no reason to fault it, right? There is no reason for you to pretend that you are some underdog champion of "what can be to sustain human life," whatever you think you mean by that. C'mon, man, get over yourself. I don't think Rorty, or any pragmatist, would say that their ideas will necessarily lead to a happy end for humanity, just that the chances of getting there are greater if we stop fantasizing about how much easier things would be if only we had what we clearly don't have. But we DO have each other and that will either be enough, or it won't. The choice is ours.
I'd like to hear Habermas's reaction to this. Who is to say that certain ideas should be taken off the table because folks who support the ideas or options are not "sufficiently educated." Seems to me that if one establishes such a standard, then this is not, in fact an ideal speech situation - even if that idea is the death penalty.
+Olivia Casey It looks like the poem mentioned by Rorty at 16:45 by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is, "Similar Cases": www.bartleby.com/380/poem/222.html In the video Rorty says, "The substance of the poem is, when the first fish crawled out of the sea, the other fish said, 'C'mon, you can't change your nature.'" The poem doesn't actually mention fish though. He makes the same point in his essay, "Feminism and Pragmatism", footnote 30.
+Olivia Casey Not sure if the poem will paste and fit on a comment, but here it goes: Similar CasesBy Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935) THERE was once a little animal, No bigger than a fox, And on five toes he scampered Over Tertiary rocks. They called him Eohippus, 5 And they called him very small, And they thought him of no value, When they thought of him at all; For the lumpish old Dinoceras And Coryphodon so slow 10 Were the heavy aristocracy In days of long ago. Said the little Eohippus, “I am going to be a horse, And on my middle finger-nails 15 To run my earthly course. I’m going to have a flowing tail; I’m going to have a mane; I’m going to stand fourteen hands high On the psychozoic plain!” 20 The Coryphodon was horrified, The Dinoceras was shocked, And they chased young Eohippus, But he skipped away and mocked. Then they laughed enormous laughter, 25 And they groaned enormous groans, And they bade young Eohippus Go view his father’s bones. Said they: “You always were as small And mean as now we see, 30 And that’s conclusive evidence That you’re always going to be.” “What! be a great, tall, handsome beast, With hoofs to gallop on? Why! you’d have to change your nature!” 35 Said the Loxolophodon. They considered him disposed of, And retired with gait serene; That was the way they argued In “the early Eocene.” 40 There was once an Anthropoidal Ape, Far smarter than the rest, And everything that they could do He always did the best; So they naturally disliked him, 45 And they gave him shoulders cool, And when they had to mention him They said he was a fool. Cried this pretentious Ape one day, “I’m going to be a Man, 50 And stand upright, and hunt, and fight And conquer all I can; I’m going to cut down forest trees, To make my houses higher; I’m going to kill the Mastodon; 55 I’m going to make a fire!” Loud screamed the Anthropoidal Apes With laughter wild and gay; They tried to catch that boastful one, But he always got away. 60 So they yelled at him in chorus, Which he minded not a whit; And they pelted him with coconuts, Which didn’t seem to hit. And then they gave him reasons 65 Which they thought of much avail, To prove how his preposterous Attempt was sure to fail. Said the sages, “In the first place, The thing cannot be done; 70 And, second, if it could be, It would not be any fun. And, third, and most conclusive, And admitting no reply, You would have to change your nature! 75 We should like to see you try.” They chuckled then triumphantly, These lean and hairy shapes, For these things passed as arguments With the Anthropoidal Apes. 80 There was once a Neolithic Man, An enterprising wight, Who made his chopping implements Unusually bright; Unusually clever he, 85 Unusually brave, And he drew delightful Mammoths On the borders of his cave. To his Neolithic neighbors, Who were startled and surprised, 90 Said he: “My friends, in course of time We shall be civilized; We are going to live in cities; We are going to fight in wars; We are going to eat three times a day 95 Without the natural cause; We are going to turn life upside down About a thing called gold; We are going to want the earth, and take As much as we can hold; 100 We are going to wear great piles of stuff Outside our proper skins; We are going to have Diseases! And Accomplishments!! And Sins!!!” Then they all rose up in fury 105 Against their boastful friend, For prehistoric patience Cometh quickly to an end. Said one, “This is chimerical! Utopian! Absurd!” 110 Said another, “What a stupid life! Too dull, upon my word!” Cried all, “Before such things can come, You idiotic child, You must alter Human Nature!” 115 And they all sat back and smiled. Thought they, “An answer to that last It will be hard to find!” It was a clinching argument To the Neolithic Mind! 120
Is the golden rule the closest thing to a kantian-like moral imperative? Probably not, because how people want to be treated varies wildly. The golden rule is at most a procedural ethical rule for each individual and/or collectives.
if rorty were still alive, i have serious doubts on how he should still carry on with his relativism in terms of moral justification, in face of contemporary politics. i believe he would be more sympathetic to habermas by now.
One should not necessarily look to the people on top for moral guidance, for most are at heart Machiavellian. Instead one should look at the state of the world under their 'leadership', and at the long and bloody history they have wrought upon mankind !
I don't think, by their own definition, pragmatists have any knowledge or insight at all. Democracy is not reason but rather compromise because of the failure to acquire political knowledge. But I thought it was objectivity Rorty disputes, yet at the end of the interview he suggests socialism and moving away from individual rights as the proper system.
The compromise resides in his socialist bent. Whatever individual rights we do or do not have are not objective. They are products of culture. The compromise he sees as most beneficial to the country is the sacrifice of raising taxes and redistributing wealth. If you hold too strongly to the ideal that you objectively own or deserve certain things, our ability to compromise is compromised.
AndrewTheRed You don't seem to understand pragmatism, especially not Rorty's articulation. Pragmatists don't eschew the idea of knowledge. A pragmatist would say something along the lines that a description/vocabulary/belief can only be said to constitute knowledge to the degree that it pays dividends. It must work in practice, make an actual difference, be actionable. As for the socialism bit, Idk. I'm not a policy wonk and I have no moral objections to taxing the rich more, just practical concerns regarding what level of taxation we could put in place before revenue started to decrease or a we accidentally get short sighted and rank the private sector.
Pragmatism might be a viable political philosophy for the educated, disciplined individual, but for those who are at the bottom of the intellectual food chain, what internal barrier or buffer exists to keep them from pillaging the hell out of others who have what they want? Couldn't be conscience because that's a powerless construct against abject selfishness. "Do unto others" is pointless unless there are harsh physical consequences awaiting the offenders. I am thinking that in a society of practicing pragmatists, there will be ever-expanding prison systems.
big talker.useless as a bag of rocks.bland, no passion, he aint that smart Just kidding !!!!!!! i love this guy. Need him in our schools curriculum...he tends to think working class americans are uneducated idiots, well with all due respect Mr Rorty, kiss my ass. Still love ya!! Ahead of his time
This guy’s thought amounts to one huge shrug in the face of the irrational fanaticism of our current world, including that of the identity politics of the American Left, and the MAGA right.
I think Rorty perhaps overstates the effect of cultural evolution on biological traits ("human nature"). I'm not even sure that is what he is doing, but if he is, it's an overstatement.
scratch a Pragmatist and you get a logical positivist, you can see an elite in his hypocrisy from his academic throne here.. stating Abortion is Ok then dismissing Kant.. But death penalty opposition from the highly educated view point is right?.. irony.. if their own child is an inconvenience it can be aborted/murdered as its convenient for the pragmatist which is pragmatic (ironic) , but a child murderer being executed for their crime bothers them, Yet they support abortion,.. this starts to show to how awful pragmatism is, its nominalism in its worst dress. .. they speak of equality, but do not enforce an eye for an eye or tooth for tooth.. They are all at sea. The main point is, a pragmatist like a Logical postivist is completely lost when it comes to Value Judgements. Sure when it comes to facts pragmatists make alot of sense. But they really need to stay away from politics and trying to run society as they have NO ideals and convictions and lack universals. Avoid like the plague or you will just run Tepid.
For being so smart, Rorty has no idea what a democracy is or he's never read the US constitution since it never mentions democracy at all, however it does mention Republicanism (Article 4 Section 4). Maybe he's just never read the document or has never read any classical literature explicitly describing what a democracy is. After all, democracy did not last 100 years in Athens where is was first invented, and there's clear reason why our forefathers did not choose it, and instead adopted a Republican form of government. People harang over the threat to democracy in Ukraine but even Google will tell you that Ukraine has a Republican form of government and not a democracy. I am also glad that Rorty was able to explain how wealth redistribution has worked so well in so many socialist/communist countries [sarcasm]
It's funny how those who attempt to give a relativistic definition of truth treat their own definition of truth as if it were itself an obvious and absolute truth.
As if a democracy could never become tyrannical. The tyranny of Athens over its neighbors was well established until brought to an end by its defeat at the hands of the Spartans. Moreover, it was that same democracy that sentenced Socrates to death. No, a democracy is always answerable to something higher than itself -- as in 'One nation under God'.
The interviewer is Noëlle McAfee a philosopher, writer and professor at Emory University. She was arrested today protesting for gaza in solidarity with her students.
That's literally the name of this channel, my guy
Thank you Professor McAfee. Saw that in the news, didn’t realize she was this interviewer.
This interviewer is phenomenal. Great questions.
Agree. She asked questions that made him uncomfortable enough to clarify his positions, but not so uncomfortable that he walked out on the interview or something.
The interview was wonderfully handled - thank you for the post.
Great interview. I greatly admire his vision. C,I,&S was one of the most important books I read as a grad student. Love his work when I agree and when I don't, always provocative, making the rest of us think harder, which is what he probably would have wanted more than being "right" in some superficially "objective" way.
You were blessed to have met this man.
I just realized it was the interviewer herself who uploaded this. That's pretty cool
Wow, Thank you! Have looked up everything on Rorty online but this is completley new to me! Very appriciated.
Practicing philosophy under capitalism is like betting against the odds.
So Rorty, what do you think about this question? Rorty: "So Dewey thought..."
I’d like to say that I’m a follower of Dewey.
He knows he’s contingent
Isn’t that how the beginning of every answer should look like? 1:10 1:10
And then he doesn’t say what Dewey says but says what he thinks and pretends he’s quoting Dewey. I have never understood this strategy
@@RestIsPhilosophyyes! he is complicated…he ranges from deeply expressing the Deweyan approach to apparently putting words in Dewey’s mouth that undermine the enterprise. Rorty must have been fascinating patient for therapy.
Thank you Noëlle
I hadn't heard of Rorty till I listened to a "Great Courses" on philosophy. Very interesting. Thanks for posting this!
I just finished that Great Course and went out and bought the transcripts so I can go back, re-listen to it, and synthesize the heck out of that course lecture with interpretive notes (hermeneutics)
Great questions by the interviewer.
she is a great philosopher I recently read her habermas, kristeva, and citizenship
The lady is excellent! Her questions directly to the point! The philosopher clear in his historicism, relativism and red revolutionism!
@@billherd9695 The fact he denies to be a marxist doesn't mean that he is not a marxist in the essence.
Than you so much for uploading this video. Prof. Rorty was a brilliant thinker.
My hero❤
His 2014 prediction seems to have been off by 6 years.
nah, we just need to add 10 years to his prediction since we basically went crazy post 9/11 till the recession.
Thanks very much for the posting.
Sam Harris comes unhinged listening to this guy
why would you even compare dick rorty to sam harris, they are categorically different entities
Sam Harris is philosophically irrelevant. He is an entertainer, writing popular philosophy books with no influence whatsoever on current academic philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, but he should not be compared to someone like Rorty.
@J W well said. I think Sam's views are not aging well, particularly as his friends on the left define moral truth as "agreement with them" -- anchored to almost nothing but power, control. Censorship and shaming are their favorite tools.
Interesting interview. Thank you for posting!
This is very prescient. I miss Rorty!
Can't believe I didn't run across this until now! Great video for my class!
Interestingly labeled as 'comedy.' Rorty is hard medicine for most philosophers, because having read much of the canon he concludes that there are no formulas for producing great and true theories of the world, the human being or society. We're sort of winging it. That strikes many as the behavior of a spoiler-- a resignation of "the tradition." But this video is instructive because of the concrete examples (abortion, death penalty, women under the Taliban) that keep coming up. Philosophers have no better answers to those than anyone else. Philosophy can clarify the relations of concepts involved, perhaps, but the key point made here is that the traditioinal ("Plato to Kant") expectation that if people who disagree keep talking to each other in good faith they will converge on the 'best' answer which must be the *same* answer. This does not seem to play out in the sphere of politics, ethics etc . The question of truth in science being something other than just "narratives and stories we tell ourselves" (Rorty) and not provisional knowledge of the world is a tougher call. He seems at times to reject even Deweyan instrumenetalism in science, replacing warranted assertability with "coping" or "doing the best we can to get on," etc. (Putnam and Larry Hickman have both criticized him on that score).
Can you help me I've project about Rorty?
@@christinatina7221 Well, if you have a question I can try to answer.
With regard to your last sentence, I think Rorty would say that he replaced warranted assertability with coping or doing the best we can is because he is a pragmatist.
@@timothywise9731 Right. He thinks Dewey vacillates between pragmatism (e.g. Quest for Certainty) and a temptation to describe nature in metaphysical terms (e.g. Experience and Nature). He also denied that Putnam really left any room for either metaphysical or scientific realism, despite his own claims. Sarcastically, he once said, "if Putnam is a realist, then so am I." I think Putnam's hard to pin down on the issue, not least because he often revised his views. The older I get, the more I like Rorty's frankness about the empty conceits of philosophy.
@@christinatina7221 - Well, how'd it go?
The interviewer looks like Agent Scully
"The interviewer looks like Agent Scully" 😂
Thanks very much
I like his advise on stepping back from an objective claim to political truths and instead grounding arguments on facts and narratives. That can do American politics and politics in general a lot of good
don't facts belong in the narrative of objectivity?
Yes they do. But in social science it helps to not be absolute in categories. What he means is taking your political (ideological) opponents in good faith. And be modest and circumspect in your own claims..
Had to check the date again when the interviewer mentioned the Taliban taking over Afghansitan.
1997. A halcyon age, when compared to 2022
I think people conform rather than confer. We need to redefine the roles we’ve created for people in society. The role the individual plays, the role the teacher plays or the parent or the official. We need to redefine these roles in a way that is more humane and functional to society. What we measure in society is what is killing us.
Good questions by the lady. Rorty ultimately had no answers about anything. Yet decisions must be made.
Using that as a criticism either betrays a misunderstanding of his philosophy or just plain incomprehension of what he says in the interview
The problem _was_ the questions--the interviewer kept asking for absolute answers, objective yes/nos and rights/wrongs; that's apparently what you're looking for too.
But Rorty spent his career telling us that we just don't get those, no matter how hard we try. They're a myth. Blindly stumbling after them, like that interviewer did and like you are, is foolish.
For god's sake, go and read _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature._ It's not that hard, and shouldn't take you that long. And it'll help you understand why this interview sounded so odd, and why the problem was the (shockingly unfamiliar with Rorty's ideas) interviewer.
@@callumsutherland2954 In the real world YOU must make decisions. This "there is no answer" is worthless bulllschitt.
@@callumsutherland2954 hello I hope you doing well I've project about Rorty can you help me about his book philosophy and mirror of nature, can you?
You don't need to have absolute truths to make decisions
Embodiment of a wise, refined American
What's the name of the essay published in the NYT that you talk about near the end of the interview?
on Islamic enlightenment, ... Well we owe our knowledge of Aristotle to Muslim scholars who underwent multiple enlightenments in multiple countries... "stranger things have happened"... riiiiight
The interviewer looks like Slim Shady ,eminem from the 90s.
Fantastic interview. Do you have the text about 2014 you talked about?
He talks the same way Tom Hanks does. Is it some kind of accent?
Rorty was from New Jersey, so I don't think so. I think it's the "All-American educated guy" affectation.
2:17 “Given that we’re American democrats, what would be the appropriate thing to say about traditional philosophical topics like truth, knowledge and rationality and so on.”
Is he advocating that philosophy be the handmaiden of whatever the current regime is?
Perhaps he would distinguish a philosopher from run of the mill defenders of the established order in that it is the true philosopher’s business to disabuse us about the possibility of attaining a _natural_ standpoint by which to judge the standpoints of the _conventional_ caves; that is, that ‘wisdom’ and ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ and even ‘nature’ are but idols of the Cave, and there is no ascent to an outside.
I think he wants philosophy to be handmaiden to American-style liberal democracy.
The Church Fathers had a similar starting point: They asked what could philosophy do for faith.
(This is sarcasm, btw -- for anyone who doesn't get it)
If that was an audio only, I would have an issue deciding whether Rorty or Bill Belichick is actually speaking, lol.
Being on top is not merely a matter of being more educated than those on the bottom. For sure education is important, but so is the kind of education, the opportunities available for careers, promotions, wage or salary increases, investments, one's connections (or lack thereof), political maneuvering, shrewdness, entrepreneurship, original social status, race, class, gender, work ethic, competition (or lack thereof), risk management, actual desire to compete and become powerful and/or wealthy, luck...
To simply say that those on the top tend to be more educated than those on the bottom, and to imply that these more educated people at the top are more 'open-minded' -- and make no mistake, what she means is they are more enlightened and therefore more moral -- on such things as the death penalty is elitism at its worst.
Actually, what it takes to get to the top has less to do with education than it does with being heartless and shrewd.
Hopefully, the heartless and shrewd among the top are not the majority.
17:47 Human history is also a matter of theory. Plus historical facts are only used to build up other theories, not to mention the fallacy of a unilinear history...
Lol Rorty has talked about this at length.
Of course more people in the UK wanted to reinstate the death penalty after 20 years of Thatchernomics/austerity. As the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, the generalized pain and frustration looks for scapegoats. Since the death penalty does not reduce murder rates, there is no scientific basis for the stated justification of the death penalty. But when the large majority of people are feeling pain and helpless, they desire an outlet for their feelings of anger and frustration.
Scary to see the end of this video as Trump rises, almost as predicted by Rorty here. And Rorty (correctly) offers Bernie's solutions!
Some of the stars of American philosophy glow in the dark. It is so obvious how they glow in the dark.
Yes, there is no truth, there is only therapy 🤗
How do we make the judgement that a person can be ahead of the times if ethics is merely the situational product of our cultures? In other words, don’t we need an external criteria besides the conventions of our own culture in order to make criticism of that culture possible, dare I say even sensible? I think that while professor Rorty is very right to say that in practice most people operate on the level of culturally informed moral intuitions, I don’t see it as being proved that these intuitions are necessarily determinative, either in ethics or in practice. Within Rorty’s framework, how can we make sense of progress as a concept of truth is relative and morality is merely a product of circumstances?
Jefferson, Christ, King, etc. were all "ahead of their time" in the sense that now, looking back, most of us agree with them more than with the people they were arguing with at the time. I suppose we don't have to call this "progress" if we don't' want to, but it doesn't seem there is any harm in doing so either, for it certainly feels like "progress" to us.
@ Why should it matter whether this “feels” like progress to us? This seems like a way of privileging our historical standpoint with a moral authority without actually providing a rationally defensible explanation for that authority. If we are to give ourselves the authority to make that judgement, we then require a trans-historical standard by which we can say that our modern sensibilities are capable of judgment. Otherwise, we are simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions without actually engaging in the practice of philosophy.
@@joshcotlar2099 It "feels like progress" in the sense that we would rather live in this society than the one that Jefferson, or Christ, or King were reacting against. We are saying something like "those people were more like us than their contemporaries and we now live in a society more like the one they were advocating for, which is so much the better for us." Although yes, any given person is free to disagree with whether or not this is "progress."
But I don't see why we shouldn't use the word "progress" to describe our feeling of living in a society we are more happy with than some other example from the past. Rorty's whole point is that we can still use words like "progress" to describe our attempt to "make things better" without invoking some kind of "trans-historical standard," but rather just our agreement that we are glad we no longer keep slaves, for example.
Yes, there is a sense in which we are "simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions,' but so what? Why shouldn't we allow ourselves to do that? It sounds like you want philosophy to be exactly the sound and fury that Rory warns us about.
@@ericb9804 I would argue that the deeper problem here is conveying a sense of moral authority to what is broadly assented to in society, and what is I think actively dangerous in Rorty’s reasoning is the complacency by which he refers to this assent as “progress”. Perhaps this view appears a anachronistic to Rorty, but I find his constant conflation of what is with what ought to be to be far more dubious than appeals to transhistorical standards. By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself.
If anything, Rorty’s view approaches something akin to a complacent nihilism, one which not only does not believe we can provide a rational account of how we ought to live with ourselves in relation with one another, but one which actively relishes this supposed fact.
If one is to be honest with the implications of the death of “truth” in the abstract or with the impossibility of a real, logically defensible account of what is right in actuality, then it makes far better sense to simply go with Nietzsche’s line of reasoning that “progress” as a concept is a fantasy and that what is “right” is completely at the whim of subjective preference, reducible to the will to power. Nietzsche believed that we ought instead to create our own values according to these preferences, and that this creative approach could provide a newly redeeming experience for life. Yet, he himself could not handle this perspective on life, and as a consequence, gradually went insane as a result his philosophy of creative destruction-precisely because what it means to be human is the wish to have a higher significance in life.
In fairness to Rorty, we would perhaps be happier to become complacent in believing that our culture’s values and way of life is indeed “right” and “progressive” simply by being our own. Yet, one can only adopt this position by first coming to an absolute state of nihilism, and then after this fact, to be capable of the utmost dishonesty with ourselves. If Nietzsche’s approach drove him to madness, then Rorty’s seems to drive us toward complacency and philosophical suicide.
All this is to say, there are actually tremendous stakes to developing and believing in the possibility of a rational defense of the good life qua man, not simply in the parochial or culturally relative sense but in the actual and ideal sense. Socrates was not a fool, we require a vision of what can be to sustain human life, one which is believed for its own sake and purpose. If this view seems unfashionable-so be it! The unfashionable does not equal the immoral or the unreasonable. If anything, views that are common are popular precisely because they appeal to the lowest common denominator, to our collective ignorance, to conformism and consumerism, breeding what Thoreau aptly referred to as a state of resignation by which “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” So in a sense yes, I wholeheartedly adopt the perspective that Rorty took to be all that is wrong with philosophy. I do so gladly and instead turn the tables around and pronounce, J’Accuse!
@@joshcotlar2099 "By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself. " - Yes. Buts thats exactly what we experience, isn't it? Which is why it seems curiously pointless to complain about it. Better to just accept it and do the best we can, I say.
It sounds to me like you are just complaining that you don't like being reminded that your positions are no more certain than those you oppose, but rather than face this face this for what it appears to be, you would rather pretend that you have some access to some "truth" that other people don't have, by way of your "philosophy" or "religion" or "reason" or whatever and that gives you the right to tell them what to do, for their own good, of course. How convenient for you.
Yes, the stakes are indeed high, but there is nothing "fashionable" about any of this. Besides, even if there were, that is no reason to fault it, right? There is no reason for you to pretend that you are some underdog champion of "what can be to sustain human life," whatever you think you mean by that. C'mon, man, get over yourself.
I don't think Rorty, or any pragmatist, would say that their ideas will necessarily lead to a happy end for humanity, just that the chances of getting there are greater if we stop fantasizing about how much easier things would be if only we had what we clearly don't have. But we DO have each other and that will either be enough, or it won't. The choice is ours.
I'd like to hear Habermas's reaction to this. Who is to say that certain ideas should be taken off the table because folks who support the ideas or options are not "sufficiently educated." Seems to me that if one establishes such a standard, then this is not, in fact an ideal speech situation - even if that idea is the death penalty.
Well, that is what Rorty says: " ... If they are only sufficiently informed when they agree with you"
I thought the same. He does seem to be caricaturing Habermas a little.
Probably why Rorty (rightfully IMO) wants to leave truth unanalyzed.
Can anyone find the poem he mentions online? Want to read
+Olivia Casey It looks like the poem mentioned by Rorty at 16:45 by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is, "Similar Cases":
www.bartleby.com/380/poem/222.html
In the video Rorty says, "The substance of the poem is, when the first fish crawled out of the sea, the other fish said, 'C'mon, you can't change your nature.'" The poem doesn't actually mention fish though. He makes the same point in his essay, "Feminism and Pragmatism", footnote 30.
+Olivia Casey Not sure if the poem will paste and fit on a comment, but here it goes:
Similar CasesBy Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935)
THERE was once a little animal,
No bigger than a fox,
And on five toes he scampered
Over Tertiary rocks.
They called him Eohippus, 5
And they called him very small,
And they thought him of no value,
When they thought of him at all;
For the lumpish old Dinoceras
And Coryphodon so slow 10
Were the heavy aristocracy
In days of long ago.
Said the little Eohippus,
“I am going to be a horse,
And on my middle finger-nails 15
To run my earthly course.
I’m going to have a flowing tail;
I’m going to have a mane;
I’m going to stand fourteen hands high
On the psychozoic plain!” 20
The Coryphodon was horrified,
The Dinoceras was shocked,
And they chased young Eohippus,
But he skipped away and mocked.
Then they laughed enormous laughter, 25
And they groaned enormous groans,
And they bade young Eohippus
Go view his father’s bones.
Said they: “You always were as small
And mean as now we see, 30
And that’s conclusive evidence
That you’re always going to be.”
“What! be a great, tall, handsome beast,
With hoofs to gallop on?
Why! you’d have to change your nature!” 35
Said the Loxolophodon.
They considered him disposed of,
And retired with gait serene;
That was the way they argued
In “the early Eocene.” 40
There was once an Anthropoidal Ape,
Far smarter than the rest,
And everything that they could do
He always did the best;
So they naturally disliked him, 45
And they gave him shoulders cool,
And when they had to mention him
They said he was a fool.
Cried this pretentious Ape one day,
“I’m going to be a Man, 50
And stand upright, and hunt, and fight
And conquer all I can;
I’m going to cut down forest trees,
To make my houses higher;
I’m going to kill the Mastodon; 55
I’m going to make a fire!”
Loud screamed the Anthropoidal Apes
With laughter wild and gay;
They tried to catch that boastful one,
But he always got away. 60
So they yelled at him in chorus,
Which he minded not a whit;
And they pelted him with coconuts,
Which didn’t seem to hit.
And then they gave him reasons 65
Which they thought of much avail,
To prove how his preposterous
Attempt was sure to fail.
Said the sages, “In the first place,
The thing cannot be done; 70
And, second, if it could be,
It would not be any fun.
And, third, and most conclusive,
And admitting no reply,
You would have to change your nature! 75
We should like to see you try.”
They chuckled then triumphantly,
These lean and hairy shapes,
For these things passed as arguments
With the Anthropoidal Apes. 80
There was once a Neolithic Man,
An enterprising wight,
Who made his chopping implements
Unusually bright;
Unusually clever he, 85
Unusually brave,
And he drew delightful Mammoths
On the borders of his cave.
To his Neolithic neighbors,
Who were startled and surprised, 90
Said he: “My friends, in course of time
We shall be civilized;
We are going to live in cities;
We are going to fight in wars;
We are going to eat three times a day 95
Without the natural cause;
We are going to turn life upside down
About a thing called gold;
We are going to want the earth, and take
As much as we can hold; 100
We are going to wear great piles of stuff
Outside our proper skins;
We are going to have Diseases!
And Accomplishments!! And Sins!!!”
Then they all rose up in fury 105
Against their boastful friend,
For prehistoric patience
Cometh quickly to an end.
Said one, “This is chimerical!
Utopian! Absurd!” 110
Said another, “What a stupid life!
Too dull, upon my word!”
Cried all, “Before such things can come,
You idiotic child,
You must alter Human Nature!” 115
And they all sat back and smiled.
Thought they, “An answer to that last
It will be hard to find!”
It was a clinching argument
To the Neolithic Mind! 120
Thank you!
Yes, but they never ask what justifies the consequences, right ?
He is ahead of his time but so out of favor with the University system nowadays.
19:09 Prediction for 2014 - Class war between the haves and have nots.
any book that refutes Pragmatism?
Books from Popper, Kant, Hegel, Comte, Russel.
@@billherd9695 Thanks
Careful with confirmation bias
Is the golden rule the closest thing to a kantian-like moral imperative? Probably not, because how people want to be treated varies wildly. The golden rule is at most a procedural ethical rule for each individual and/or collectives.
if rorty were still alive, i have serious doubts on how he should still carry on with his relativism in terms of moral justification, in face of contemporary politics. i believe he would be more sympathetic to habermas by now.
Benjamim Picado I doubt it.
One should not necessarily look to the people on top for moral guidance, for most are at heart Machiavellian.
Instead one should look at the state of the world under their 'leadership', and at the long and bloody history they have wrought upon mankind !
ruclips.net/video/xwNW417h494/видео.html 26 APR 2024
11-minute interview with Emory professor Noelle McAfee about protest arrest
I don't think, by their own definition, pragmatists have any knowledge or insight at all. Democracy is not reason but rather compromise because of the failure to acquire political knowledge. But I thought it was objectivity Rorty disputes, yet at the end of the interview he suggests socialism and moving away from individual rights as the proper system.
The compromise resides in his socialist bent. Whatever individual rights we do or do not have are not objective. They are products of culture. The compromise he sees as most beneficial to the country is the sacrifice of raising taxes and redistributing wealth. If you hold too strongly to the ideal that you objectively own or deserve certain things, our ability to compromise is compromised.
AndrewTheRed You don't seem to understand pragmatism, especially not Rorty's articulation. Pragmatists don't eschew the idea of knowledge. A pragmatist would say something along the lines that a description/vocabulary/belief can only be said to constitute knowledge to the degree that it pays dividends. It must work in practice, make an actual difference, be actionable.
As for the socialism bit, Idk. I'm not a policy wonk and I have no moral objections to taxing the rich more, just practical concerns regarding what level of taxation we could put in place before revenue started to decrease or a we accidentally get short sighted and rank the private sector.
❤ terjemahan sementara
Ke bahasaa Indonesia nya !
# biar Dong @
a great argument for socialism
Noelle was very pretty. She looks a bit like Jodie Foster.
very relevant. :/
But true.
Pragmatism might be a viable political philosophy for the educated, disciplined individual, but for those who are at the bottom of the intellectual food chain, what internal barrier or buffer exists to keep them from pillaging the hell out of others who have what they want? Couldn't be conscience because that's a powerless construct against abject selfishness. "Do unto others" is pointless unless there are harsh physical consequences awaiting the offenders. I am thinking that in a society of practicing pragmatists, there will be ever-expanding prison systems.
correct.
We could hardly call a society of pragmatists a society at all.
Wow, i never knew Rorty was a Simpsons charcter
So what was it that everyone found so interesting about this video?
People like Rorty
I enjoy the blokes work. I just didn't think, in this particular interview, that Rorty shined as he has done in comparison with his other lectures.
Sai Mak I agree but there aren't many lectures available. Any Rorty is good Rorty.
I am educated and I am harrassed because I am educated.
big talker.useless as a bag of rocks.bland, no passion, he aint that smart Just kidding !!!!!!! i love this guy. Need him in our schools curriculum...he tends to think working class americans are uneducated idiots, well with all due respect Mr Rorty, kiss my ass. Still love ya!! Ahead of his time
Don' t pick of me. I was just collecting stamps.
Internal Family systems therapy
"political theorist" - that much is correct.
Rorty, "Meta-Philosopher"
I agree with him to all but he refuse fundamental of philosophy... philosphy is great
This guy’s thought amounts to one huge shrug in the face of the irrational fanaticism of our current world, including that of the identity politics of the American Left, and the MAGA right.
I think Rorty perhaps overstates the effect of cultural evolution on biological traits ("human nature"). I'm not even sure that is what he is doing, but if he is, it's an overstatement.
Rorty was a relativist. Wrong poit of view. The truth is absolute.
scratch a Pragmatist and you get a logical positivist, you can see an elite in his hypocrisy from his academic throne here.. stating Abortion is Ok then dismissing Kant.. But death penalty opposition from the highly educated view point is right?.. irony.. if their own child is an inconvenience it can be aborted/murdered as its convenient for the pragmatist which is pragmatic (ironic) , but a child murderer being executed for their crime bothers them, Yet they support abortion,.. this starts to show to how awful pragmatism is, its nominalism in its worst dress. .. they speak of equality, but do not enforce an eye for an eye or tooth for tooth.. They are all at sea.
The main point is, a pragmatist like a Logical postivist is completely lost when it comes to Value Judgements. Sure when it comes to facts pragmatists make alot of sense. But they really need to stay away from politics and trying to run society as they have NO ideals and convictions and lack universals. Avoid like the plague or you will just run Tepid.
For being so smart, Rorty has no idea what a democracy is or he's never read the US constitution since it never mentions democracy at all, however it does mention Republicanism (Article 4 Section 4). Maybe he's just never read the document or has never read any classical literature explicitly describing what a democracy is. After all, democracy did not last 100 years in Athens where is was first invented, and there's clear reason why our forefathers did not choose it, and instead adopted a Republican form of government. People harang over the threat to democracy in Ukraine but even Google will tell you that Ukraine has a Republican form of government and not a democracy. I am also glad that Rorty was able to explain how wealth redistribution has worked so well in so many socialist/communist countries [sarcasm]
It's funny how those who attempt to give a relativistic definition of truth treat their own definition of truth as if it were itself an obvious and absolute truth.
As if a democracy could never become tyrannical. The tyranny of Athens over its neighbors was well established until brought to an end by its defeat at the hands of the Spartans. Moreover, it was that same democracy that sentenced Socrates to death. No, a democracy is always answerable to something higher than itself -- as in 'One nation under God'.
Rorty was ahead of philosophy and American culture.
"kinda funny" - interviewer McAfee
Boomer mansplaining Dewey wannabe... I fancy Noelle here as being the much cooler, more impressive figure
tax the middle class -- but don't touch those bankers, because their foundations promote my books
the Rortys books are promote by public money
I can assure you that Rorty would be very much in favor of taxing the rich.
He's a bullshit artist.
If that was an audio only, I would have an issue deciding whether Rorty or Bill Belichick is actually speaking, lol.