Kicking the Philosophy Habit: Richard Rorty’s Clarion Call and the Cultural Politics of the Academic Left

Q2 Arts and Humanities Analyse und Kritik Pub Date : 2019-05-01 DOI:10.1515/auk-2019-410106
Gregory Jones-Katz
{"title":"Kicking the Philosophy Habit: Richard Rorty’s Clarion Call and the Cultural Politics of the Academic Left","authors":"Gregory Jones-Katz","doi":"10.1515/auk-2019-410106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Richard Rorty advocated that his confréres kick the ‘philosophy habit’-that is, adopt a post-positivist, post-metaphysical style of interpretation. Philosophers largely ignored Rorty’s clarion call. Unburdened by the kind of Selbstverständnis of scholarly mission held by most analytics, members of departments of literature instead became the most important advocates for reading literature philosophically during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Though the academic Left, especially practitioners of ‘theory’, largely celebrated and encouraged this development, Rorty, in the late 1990s, came to view it as harmfully elevating ‘cultural politics’ above ‘real politics’, which would ultimately lead to the abandonment of civic responsibilities. While heavy-handed and partial, Rorty’s critique of the uses of philosophy by literary critics was not only perceptive, but can be helpful for understanding how the contemporary academic Left might move forward as well.","PeriodicalId":35240,"journal":{"name":"Analyse und Kritik","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyse und Kritik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2019-410106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Richard Rorty advocated that his confréres kick the ‘philosophy habit’-that is, adopt a post-positivist, post-metaphysical style of interpretation. Philosophers largely ignored Rorty’s clarion call. Unburdened by the kind of Selbstverständnis of scholarly mission held by most analytics, members of departments of literature instead became the most important advocates for reading literature philosophically during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Though the academic Left, especially practitioners of ‘theory’, largely celebrated and encouraged this development, Rorty, in the late 1990s, came to view it as harmfully elevating ‘cultural politics’ above ‘real politics’, which would ultimately lead to the abandonment of civic responsibilities. While heavy-handed and partial, Rorty’s critique of the uses of philosophy by literary critics was not only perceptive, but can be helpful for understanding how the contemporary academic Left might move forward as well.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
摒弃哲学习惯:理查德·罗蒂的号角与学术左派的文化政治
在20世纪70年代末和80年代初,理查德·罗蒂(Richard Rorty)主张他的导师们抛弃“哲学习惯”——即采用一种后实证主义、后形而上学的解释风格。哲学家们在很大程度上忽视了罗蒂的号召。在20世纪的最后20年里,文学系的成员没有承担大多数分析学所承担的Selbstverständnis学术使命,反而成为了哲学阅读文学的最重要倡导者。尽管学术左派,尤其是“理论”的实践者,在很大程度上赞扬和鼓励这种发展,但罗蒂在20世纪90年代末开始将其视为有害地将“文化政治”提升到“现实政治”之上,这最终将导致放弃公民责任。罗蒂对文学批评家使用哲学的批评虽然严厉而偏颇,但不仅是敏锐的,而且有助于理解当代学术左派如何前进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Analyse und Kritik
Analyse und Kritik Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
From Prejudice to Polarization and Rejection of Democracy The Stopping Power of Sources Democracy, Civility, and Semantic Descent Ethics and Affect in Resistance to Democratic Regressions Practice Theory as a Tool for Critical Social Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1