Dispensing with Truthfulness: truth and liberty in Rorty’s thought

J. Colen
{"title":"Dispensing with Truthfulness: truth and liberty in Rorty’s thought","authors":"J. Colen","doi":"10.2478/kjps-2020-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Rorty saw the course of philosophy in the twentieth century as an effort to part from two major philosophical trends, namely historicism and naturalism, only to inevitably return at the end of a tortuous path to these very same tendencies. If we can concede without major objections (although perhaps with many objections of detail) Rorty’s diagnosis of the trends in contemporary continental and analytical philosophy, which seem to reveal the exhaustion of modern philosophy, based as it has been on epistemology, we must, on the other hand, examine carefully the three main questions that this diagnosis leaves open: (1) How does Rorty reconcile continental idealist subjectivism with materialistic behaviorism? (2) Is it really inevitable that philosophy (and philosophers) blinded by Geist are unable to question prevalent beliefs? (3) Finally, is the acceptance of a liberalism that is not able to give reasons for itself the most effective and pragmatic liberalism? In answering these questions, it may not be possible to avoid a non-dogmatic, but pragmatic, metaphysics: a vocabulary of vocabularies that allows Rorty (and us) to speak of the problems of justice in Plato and Rawls, of the soul in Aristotle and Descartes, of the dystopias in Moro and Orwell. On pragmatic terms, perhaps a modest version of a metaphysic’s “vocabulary” turns out to be as legitimate and practical as any other vocabulary.","PeriodicalId":52005,"journal":{"name":"Kairos-Journal of Philosophy & Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"42 - 73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kairos-Journal of Philosophy & Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/kjps-2020-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Rorty saw the course of philosophy in the twentieth century as an effort to part from two major philosophical trends, namely historicism and naturalism, only to inevitably return at the end of a tortuous path to these very same tendencies. If we can concede without major objections (although perhaps with many objections of detail) Rorty’s diagnosis of the trends in contemporary continental and analytical philosophy, which seem to reveal the exhaustion of modern philosophy, based as it has been on epistemology, we must, on the other hand, examine carefully the three main questions that this diagnosis leaves open: (1) How does Rorty reconcile continental idealist subjectivism with materialistic behaviorism? (2) Is it really inevitable that philosophy (and philosophers) blinded by Geist are unable to question prevalent beliefs? (3) Finally, is the acceptance of a liberalism that is not able to give reasons for itself the most effective and pragmatic liberalism? In answering these questions, it may not be possible to avoid a non-dogmatic, but pragmatic, metaphysics: a vocabulary of vocabularies that allows Rorty (and us) to speak of the problems of justice in Plato and Rawls, of the soul in Aristotle and Descartes, of the dystopias in Moro and Orwell. On pragmatic terms, perhaps a modest version of a metaphysic’s “vocabulary” turns out to be as legitimate and practical as any other vocabulary.
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
摒弃真实:罗蒂思想中的真理与自由
罗蒂认为,20世纪的哲学历程是一种努力,旨在摆脱两大哲学思潮,即历史主义和自然主义,但在曲折的道路结束时,却不可避免地回到这两大思潮。罗蒂对当代大陆哲学和分析哲学趋势的诊断似乎揭示了基于认识论的现代哲学的枯竭,如果我们能够在没有重大反对意见的情况下(尽管可能在细节上有许多反对意见),我们必须在另一方面仔细检查这一诊断留下的三个主要问题:(1)罗蒂如何调和大陆唯心主义主观主义与唯物主义行为主义?(2)被盖斯特蒙蔽的哲学(和哲学家)真的不可避免地无法质疑流行的信仰吗?(3)最后,接受一种不能为自己给出理由的自由主义,是最有效、最实用的自由主义吗?在回答这些问题时,我们可能无法避免一种非教条主义但实用主义的形而上学:一种词汇的词汇,允许罗蒂(和我们)谈论柏拉图和罗尔斯的正义问题,亚里士多德和笛卡尔的灵魂问题,摩罗和奥威尔的反乌托邦问题。从实用主义的角度来看,也许形而上学的“词汇”的一个适度版本最终会被证明与任何其他词汇一样合法和实用。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
A parrésia em Foucault - tecimentos Lying, computers and self-awareness Equações Como Ícones (Seguidos Das Suas Peircianas “Verdades Insuspeitadas”) On how statistics is used and abused to find truth in Science Jean-Yves Mercury, Chemins Avec et Autour de Merleau-Ponty (Paris, L’Harmattan, 2019)
×
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