Epistemology: Richard Rorty's Neopragmatism and a Postmodern Philosophy of Truth
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Rorty's approach is referred to as "postmodern" since it feels to be a natural progression out of the modern philosophy of Descartes. It is also referred to as "neopragmatic" because it takes an extremely pragmatic, practical look at the nature of our truths.
Start by thinking of this question: What is the one commonality among all the "truths" we've discussed so far?
Being a pragmatist, Rorty's answer to the question might be the most obvious one
As you watch the lecutre below, try to watch for answers to the following questions:
1. What is Rorty's neopragmatic theory of truth and why critics are afraid the later might lead to relativism.
2. What is the problem of language and why might truths be culturally biased?
3. Why do some believe a non-linguistic form of communication (like music, dance, or visual art) might be a better expression of truth?
Relativism is what people call pragmatism who don't like it. - R. Rorty
Good show. We call statements "true" when we think we can defend their utility to all who question it. "True" is a useful enough concept in colloquial speech, but "absolute" is something we can simply ignore and be none the worse for that.
Nice statement of basic Rorty.
But if all of what Rorty is saying is ...ahem 'true', then does that mean by extension that we have 'truth', absolutely, or is that relative too?
When you criticize that someone uses words to make a point, are you not using words then too? So why does that count as a valid critique but not self evident statements? Ayn Rand would refer to this as a “stolen concept”.
Sure words in themselves don’t carry truth but if they refer to some actual event (pragmatism or correspondance theory) or logical relationships (rationalism) then they refer to truth.
It's a paradox at best and a performative contradiction at worse.
7:22 The truth of an interpretation of a declarative sentence is only sometimes determined by knowledge of words. Sometimes it's underdetermined by knowledge of words and knowledge of evidence is also needed in order to fully determine it.
Cool 👍
Images are made of 2D shapes, 2D shapes represent 3D form; images represent 3D form. CHECK MATE.
What post-modern philosophy of truth in relation to Modernism's transcendental truth?
16:15 I guess the culture biased truth-claim depends how we define truth (personal,cultural,math,scientific etc)
25:34 It's true for me that relativistic truth (really belief) is different from what I'm talking about when I talk about truth.
So if i cant hear or speak then there is no table in the room i wont recognize that thing at all or its function?? Whether i call it bing bong boom or johnny just farted, its going to take place. If a tree falls and i cant hear it it still fell... theres reactions that take place whether or not i can speak. Now if i cant see then thats different
Lots of non-linguistic knowledge,
Is "1+1=2" a sentence in this context? :o
If so then yeah I agree that truth is a quality of the meanings of some sentences
14:31 Would it be least biased to express a claim in as many languages as possible in random order?
24:09 Even if the language of those people doesn't have nouns that doesn't mean that they definitely don't have any mental concept of stuff or contents or existence. I don't see at all how the former definitively means the latter.
I had the same thought/question. If the language speaker says "computer desking" but they know that means "The computer is on the desk" then they do have a concept of things in their language. Or am I missing some other point.
13:05 There seems to be a bit of a symmetry breaker between the empiricists and the rationalists which is that the truth about unmarried bachelors depend only on definitions. Meanwhile the truth about tables in the room depends on a combination of definitions and observations.
17:39 This is new meanings or new interpretations being generated from the symbols, not the original meaning or original interpretation literally changing. The original meaning and original interpretation still exist in the mind of the author at the time when they made the statement eternalistically speaking
8:45 Being created by humans seems to be a quality that would make something a part of the world. Everything that isn't in the world hasn't been created by humans.
Also even if the word isn't itself the meaning of the word and the meaning of the word isn't itself the referent of that meaning doesn't mean that the referent isn't in the world
13:51 And where does culture come from? Non-reality? It seems contradictory to say words don't come from reality but do come from culture. Reality is still the ultimate root.