罗蒂对哲学的拒绝

Q2 Arts and Humanities Analyse und Kritik Pub Date : 2019-05-01 DOI:10.1515/AUK-2019-410104
B. Leiter
{"title":"罗蒂对哲学的拒绝","authors":"B. Leiter","doi":"10.1515/AUK-2019-410104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I argue that the real puzzle about Richard Rorty’s intellectual development is not why he gave up on ‘analytic’ philosophy-he had never been much committed to that research agenda, even before it became moribund-but why, beginning with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (PMN), he gave up on the central concerns of philosophy going back to antiquity. In addition to Rorty’s published works, I draw on biographical information about Rorty’s undergraduate and graduate education to support this assessment, and contrast his rejection of philosophy with Nietzsche’s. Many contemporary philosophers influenced by Quine’s attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction and Sellars’ attack on ‘the Myth of the Given’ (the two argumentative linchpins of PMN) did not abandon philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, and mind, they just concluded those questions needed to be naturalized, to be answered in conjunction with the empirical sciences. Why didn’t Rorty go this route? The paper concludes with some interesting anecdotes about Rorty that invite speculative explanations.","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":"{\"title\":\"Rorty’s Rejection of Philosophy\",\"authors\":\"B. Leiter\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/AUK-2019-410104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract I argue that the real puzzle about Richard Rorty’s intellectual development is not why he gave up on ‘analytic’ philosophy-he had never been much committed to that research agenda, even before it became moribund-but why, beginning with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (PMN), he gave up on the central concerns of philosophy going back to antiquity. In addition to Rorty’s published works, I draw on biographical information about Rorty’s undergraduate and graduate education to support this assessment, and contrast his rejection of philosophy with Nietzsche’s. Many contemporary philosophers influenced by Quine’s attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction and Sellars’ attack on ‘the Myth of the Given’ (the two argumentative linchpins of PMN) did not abandon philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, and mind, they just concluded those questions needed to be naturalized, to be answered in conjunction with the empirical sciences. Why didn’t Rorty go this route? The paper concludes with some interesting anecdotes about Rorty that invite speculative explanations.\",\"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-2019-410104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyse und Kritik","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/AUK-2019-410104","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

摘要

我认为,关于理查德·罗蒂智力发展的真正困惑,并不是他为什么放弃了“分析”哲学——他从未对这一研究议程有过太多的投入,甚至在它濒临死亡之前——而是为什么,从《哲学与自然之镜》(PMN)开始,他放弃了追溯到古代的哲学的核心关注。除了罗蒂的出版作品,我还利用罗蒂本科和研究生教育的传记信息来支持这一评价,并将他对哲学的排斥与尼采的排斥进行对比。许多当代哲学家受到奎因对分析-综合区分的攻击和塞拉斯对“给定的神话”(PMN的两个争论关键)的攻击的影响,并没有放弃关于真理、知识和心灵的哲学问题,他们只是得出结论,这些问题需要归化,需要与经验科学结合起来回答。为什么罗蒂不走这条路?这篇论文以一些关于罗蒂的有趣的轶事结尾,这些轶事引起了推测性的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Rorty’s Rejection of Philosophy
Abstract I argue that the real puzzle about Richard Rorty’s intellectual development is not why he gave up on ‘analytic’ philosophy-he had never been much committed to that research agenda, even before it became moribund-but why, beginning with Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (PMN), he gave up on the central concerns of philosophy going back to antiquity. In addition to Rorty’s published works, I draw on biographical information about Rorty’s undergraduate and graduate education to support this assessment, and contrast his rejection of philosophy with Nietzsche’s. Many contemporary philosophers influenced by Quine’s attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction and Sellars’ attack on ‘the Myth of the Given’ (the two argumentative linchpins of PMN) did not abandon philosophical questions about truth, knowledge, and mind, they just concluded those questions needed to be naturalized, to be answered in conjunction with the empirical sciences. Why didn’t Rorty go this route? The paper concludes with some interesting anecdotes about Rorty that invite speculative explanations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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