Talk:Richard Rorty/Archive 1

Philosophical Lexicon comment
The Philosophical Lexicon comment at the beginning of the article was removed as NPOV, though I think it is very deftly placed and perfectly NPOV: it summarizes Rorty in a way that is not offensive yet clever, and it gives some acknowledgement to the point of view of the clever/humorous, not to be totally upstaged by the somber/dry POV normally part of the gut reaction when creating academic biographies. In fact, I think it's a very good example of NPOV balance: this is the only place in the article as it is now where humor is really relevant, and it does its job well! &mdash;Tarnas 06:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

taskforce
Hey, I'm looking in on behalf of the Cleanup Taskforce. The article seems to me to be fairly clearly written with proper grammar and the rest. The only comment I would have is a lack of references. Is there anything else that needs to be done here? Kerowyn 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Rorty's major work is the Mirror of Nature (or something like that). I read a chapter from, but was not sure exactly how to situate it with respect to ascribing it some sort of philosophical position. The short paragraph in this article about the book greatly helped me figure out, to some extent, a starting place for figuring out Rorty's position. However, the paragraph in this article is short, stubby, and needs to be expanded upon. Rorty is an important (albeit heavily criticized) philosopher. It would be doing him justice to expand upon the section on his major works, fully explicating his philosophical positions and assertions. Kevin L. 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then maybe we should merge the article on Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature with this one. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been re-assigned this task and I found these external links to non-English sites. I have removed these for the moment and unless there is a specific reason for it to go back in, it will not reside in the original content.
 * Rorty: pragmatismo, ironismo liberal y solidaridad | En Revista Observaciones Filosóficas
 * | Ensayo: Rorty, La Filosofía como género literario | en A Parte Rei, Madrid

 Nivus | (talk) | (desk)  10:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

External link addition
Someone erased, and I believe for no good reason, the link I had put to a critique of Rorty. Since this seems to be sincerely lacking here, I'm putting it right back. 201.50.127.26 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Again it happened. Losers; they are everywhere. 201.8.5.123 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will keep adding the link, like you or not, until one as good or better than it is found. Rorty is a controversial man with very controversial ideas; people such as me, who do not agree with them, are entitled to have their views expressed somewhat here, or, at least, to show the dissenting view to one another. That's why I shared that adress, and will continue to do so. It personally pleases me very much that I can annoy people who are able to admire that subliterate swindler, but this is getting tiresome. 200.222.192.129 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would like more criticism of Rorty added to the article, I suggest that you insert text that is sourced to a notable critic of Rorty rather than adding a link to a homepage. I imagine that that would be more constructive than accusing people of censorship when they delete your link. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Suffering versus Cruelty
The article originally said that Rorty was endeavoring to describe a society singularly opposed to suffering, when in actuality, no such language appears in his work. Rather, the term 'cruelty' is used. There's a fundamental difference between suffering and cruelty. One is an imposition to produce suffering, the other is a response to imposition, deliberate or not. The latter can lead to social progress when it is made into "statements of autonomy," or "private self-image" as Rorty would later rephrase it to me. As specious as the difference seems, it exists, and I think it would be a misattribution to keep 'suffering' instead of 'cruelty' in the article.


 * Wrong. Rorty usually refers to cruelty, which for him is the ultimate sin. But he definitely also at times refers to suffering. He often endorses redescriptions as a way to sensitise us to the suffering of others, and in doing so, make it harder for us to be cruel to them. See p xvi of Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, p 213 of Objectivity, Relativism and Truth, and also his essay, "Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality" for just a couple of examples.

As to to the issue of eliminating suffering, the issue to which I originally responded, you are incorrect. I never said that Rorty didn't write on suffering. I said he wasn't describing a society singularly opposed to suffering. It is precisely the role of suffering you described--the response in others that prompts them to reduce cruelty--that can bring about social progress. It would also be contradictory should Rorty say we need endeavor to eliminate suffering when suffering is the very thing emphasized in works (Nabakov, Dickens, etc.) that tends to bring about social hope and progress, something partially defined by a reduction of cruelty. Suffering, however, is not insoluble with cruelty. Suffering itself can be incurred by recognizing cruelty; thus, a fundamental difference is clear. --Kallath 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are beating up the distinction. Rorty seems to casually throw in the terms almost interchangibly, even though their precise meaning differs. I'm also not sure what you mean by a "society singularly opposed" to suffering. He does say he wants society to be singularly liberal, and he does say liberals want suffering diminished, which would seem to me to suggest a society opposed to suffering. The gradualistic historical consequence of this is the tendency towards the progressive eradication of suffering, as much as it is possible - much like cruelty. I agree he tends to play up the cruelty part more. But I can not see how it is contradictory to 1) have a utopian commitment to the ultimate (although perhaps practically unrealisable) goal of eliminating suffering and 2) using texts to alert us to suffering where it exists in order to encourage us to end it. In reality social hope and social progress would probably never cease, because as we steadily proceeded to eradicate suffering, we would always find more and more subtle (although smaller) examples of it. But it is still a tendency towards its eradication. If this is contradictory, so is the injunction against cruelty. He does at times say that Nabakov etc alert us to our cruelty and thereby enable social progress. However, if we finally eradicate cruelty, how could this proceed fruther? It can proceed because we will always be able to find smaller and smaller examples of cruelty even though we come closer and closer to eradicating it.

Criticism Section Really Weak
I wrote most of this page under a former avatar, and I am happy to see how it has improved. Unfortunately, the criticism section is weasel-word central. Who are these 'some' who see things? I will try and work on this over the next few days. ParvatiBai 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Reception and criticism
I don't find this section very helpful - the explanation of the criticisms from the "left" and the "right" are so generally stated as to be meaningless, and the cross referencing to Nagel and Nozick doesn't help, as neither of those articles mentions the criticisms they have made of Rorty. Could someone perhaps expand on the criticisms, or provide references as to where they could be found, so I can do it? ElectricRay 09:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for an absolutely brilliant thrashing of Rortian relativism (and a clear and compelling explanation of exctly why his positions cannout but entail relativism and self-contradiction), see Berel Lang Rorty Scrivener in The Anatomy of Philosophical Style. --Lacatosias 13:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you, Lacatosias, read some of Rorty's works before you throw around words like "thrashing". I'd like to direct you, specifically, to Chapter 3 (The contingency of a liberal community) of Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, in which Rorty directly addresses this "criticism". And on the topic of whether this is or is not a "criticism", I would argue that Lang is making an appraisal rather than an argument, albeit a parochial one. I'm sorry if I'm being somewhat of an ass, but it bothers me when people try to dismiss someone without reading his works. --Heyitspeter 09:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Lang is not a right-winger. This artcile is silly to suggest that those who charge Rorty with relativism and incoherence are all right-wingers. I'm a socialist, by god, and I reject both Rorty and relativism!!--Lacatosias 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-- For one of the most important philosophers of our day, the Rorty entry is pretty skimpy. Any ideas on where to go from here, to beef it up and give a sense of why Rorty's work is so significant?


 * Popularity is not equivelent to importance. Certainly Nietzche is infinitely more popular and famous than Gottlob Frege (how many people have even heard of Frege?? and he might never have been known at all if not for Russell) but whose contibutions to logic and philsophy of language were more important??

Obviously Frege.--Lacatosias 14:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * After stating a truism "Popularity is not equivalent to importance", you ask a pretty silly and loaded question... as if Nietzsche's primary goal was influence on the academic study of logic. He desired wider cultural influence. And if you consider total philosophical influence, and not just the narrow confines of analytic philosophy, I think it is obvious that Nietzsche was far more influential... Nobody said popularity was equivalent to importance, the two just happen to correlate.


 * If you consider the fact that the extraordinary revolution in logic initiated in large part by Frege (quantification theory, the function-argument anaylsis of sentences, etc) contributed eventually to the development of theoretical computer science, practical computer science, mathematics, linguistics and almost every other field of scientific human endeavor, Frege was infinitely more important to the development of human knowledge and to the improvement of the human condition tha Neitzche. As I said, "popularity is not nearly equivelaent to importance" and they may not even be correlated. Witness the fame and popularity of Jacques Derrida and other postmodenist scribblers of meanignless, unimportant horseshit. Furthermoer, Adolf Hitler was very popular and influential too. He was indeed important!! Why? Well, not because he contributed anything positive to humanity  obviously. I would argue that the same is true of Neitzche. Just a fashionable nutcase with weird ideas that appeal to people's desire to feel self-important. I read eveything he write and got past it (saw through it) when I was 17. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 10:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the examples you mention are ridiculously loaded. You only mention scientific knowledge. Why don't you ask who had more influence in areas of the creative arts and humanistic knowledge? We were discussing importance, so the bit about being beneficial to the human condition is irrelevant. You obviously have strong and (highly) contentious opinions about what counts as valid knowledge, but this isn't really the appropriate place to start throwing around your assertions, value judgements and personal anecdotes.


 * It doesn't particularly matter how screwed up or brilliant Rorty is. This is an encyclopedia article, not an op-ed piece. To continue using Lacatosias' example, Adolf Hitler has an extremely large entry, in spite of the fact that many people hope he is burning in hell.--Heyitspeter 10:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Be bold!
Much is missing from this page indeed, and much needs to be fleshed out. We are dealing with a major figure here. I think the NPOV has been well applied, and we should welcome a more robust criticism section as we expand the discussion of Rorty's work. I do contest the claim that Rorty's writing is not considered to be clear, since 'most' philosophers (who are they? let's not use weasel words) are not the only readers of texts. Rorty is incredibly popular outside the academy, for the very reason that his prose is clear, even if his ideas are not always so. Cheers. ParvatiBai 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I base the claim that "most philosophers" feel that Rorty is unclear on 20 years of being a professional philosopher and discussing Rorty's work with others. (If you want me to be more specific, the philosophers in the philosophy departments at Stanford and Vassar, to start with.  These would be a small percentage of the field, but a very representative sample, I should think.)  "Clarity" is itself an unclear term, in any case.  Rorty's work seems clear to non-philosophers, which is part of the reason it is so popular.  But philosophers may recognize failures of clarity that non-specialists do not.  Consider an analogy:  someone who is unfamiliar with automobiles is told, "I put the carburator in the gas tank, and now the car runs much more efficiently."  The person who doesn't understand cars thinks this sentence is perfectly clear:  no jargon, simple declarative sentences.  But if you understand cars, you know it's not clear at all what the person might be talking about.  The same is often true of Rorty.  In short, unless it is clear what is meant by "clear," it is uninformative to tell readers that Rorty is popular because he is "clear." Bryan12603 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)bryan12603

Discussions between colleagues (not to mention pulling rank) would fall under the category of WP:OR, not encyclopedic material. There are also professional philosophers who think that Rorty is a rigorous thinker on his own terms. That is why 'most' is a weasel word and neither you, who have talked with Rorty critics, nor I, who have talked with Rorty supporters, can use that evidence to revert the article. I would also caution you that non-professional readers of philosophy can also think, just as most non-mechanics know that "carburators" [sic] do not go in the gas tank. Cheers ParvatiBai 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much to add, except to say that I think that ParvatiBai has it right here: the word "most" is unsubstantiated, and the defense offered by Bryan above does not hold very well. After all, everybody is entitled to be horribly wrong from time to time, even the folks at stanford, and I am having a very hard time believing that the issue here is that "clarity" needs more explanation. Keep up the good work. - Sam 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've started/written a page on Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (and Ironism, and Final vocabulary). I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and so perhaps the organization could be made more mainstream. I'd appreciate the help, if anyone here has read the book.--Heyitspeter 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Classification
In case anyone is wondering, I edited the page so that Pragmatist has a capital P because it refers to a specific school of philosophy, namely Pragmatism. --Damnedkingdom

I have a bad feeling about RR being classified as an "analytical philosopher". For starters, he'd most certainly hate the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy. Secondly, he argues against many theoretical pillars of latter day hard-core analytic philosophy (think representation). I know he's trained in The Analytic Way(tm), but IMO that alone does not make him part of the gang. --Snooweatinganima

I took a course from Rorty Winter 2005, and he characterized the situation like this: he can write analytical philosophy Monday and Wednesday, and romantic/continental philosophy Tuesday and Thursday (echoing the words of William James on belief). He definitely was on the side of the romantic/continental, but delved into writing on both sides. You have to study analytical philosophy if you set out to show why we don't need it! Also, he did use the analytical v. continental dichotamy as the main structure of the course, "the place of philosophy in culture". Mlove 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are Quine and Sellars called "post-analytic?" What is "post-analytic philosophy" supposed to be (post-logical positivism?), and how were those two figures anything but paradigmatic examples of analytic philosophers?

Right, I was wondering about that too. This awful habit of creating neologisms by adding cool prefixes should stop. It can easily be said "late analytical philosophers" or "analytical philosophers who questioned some early tenets of analytical philosophy", etc. Yet, post-analytical is clearly out of place. I hope I receive answers before I plan to change it. YoungSpinoza 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a phlosophy stub on 'postanalytic philosophy' several months ago. I feel the use of the term to describe Quine is quite appropriate--Sellars, less so. However, it is nonetheless a commonly used term to describe those who write along an analytic vein but who believe also in writing on issues that bear a social valence. Rorty, I think, is the quintessential postanalytic philosopher in this sense. Not all 'postanalytic thinkers,' however, must disavow analytic philosophy such as Rorty has. It's simply a loosely used term to describe such detachments and to deter the use of the term 'postmodern' for the same sorts of ascriptions. --Kallath 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Rorty's master's thesis, which prepared the way for his doctoral dissertation, was on Whitehead. It was called “Whitehead's Use of the Concept of Potentiality.” (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1952). His work at Chicago was NOT strictly analytic, as Whitehead and Dewey had pronounced influences on the school. Through Hartshorne and others, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't have had significant introductions into American Philosophy. (Not everyone seems to be aware that Whitehead is a significant contributor to American Philosophy, with many parallels to Peirce.) So, I think it's significantly misleading to suggest that he was a strictly analytic philosopher in the early years until some turn-around after becoming acquainted with American Philosophy in the middle years. While Rorty was not a Whiteheadian by any means, I have also recently co-authored an article with David Griffin explaining that Rorty's interpretation of Whitehead's critique of 'subjectivist sensationism' in the 1960s was closer to the mark than later interpretations. So, I think that it would be nice to get this paragraph on his early philosophy corrected. Can anyone else involved in this discussion verify the exposure that Rorty got to American Philosophy at Chicago? Olav Smith 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

News of Rorty's Death
After a day or so following the Telos report, news of his death has not travelled as far and wide as I would have expected. Any thoughts? I realize we are at the end of the news cycle but Rorty's influence on contemporary thought goes well beyond the United States and the Anglo-sphere. I noticed in the edit summary that a family member has validated his passing. Amitorit 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's all very strange, and this is part of why I thought the edit was vandalism to begin with. I can't find a credible news source other than Telos (Edit: Stanford has issued a statement) that references this incident (this is not to say that Rorty is not dead, of course). You'd think there would be a few more people interested, even if they are generally oppositional (e.g., the NY times article on Derrida). I've searched the net for a while and can't find anything else. If you or anyone else finds anything, please if you would try and copy/paste it either here or straight into the article. We'll see what turns up, eh? --Heyitspeter 10:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's another source http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/in_memoriam.html

This should be a credible souce I think - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001268.html


 * shame he is death (this might sound ironic) -- Andersmusician  $  02:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a good obit/summary of his work on Australian public radio last week: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2007/1948889.htm Fmark 06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Biography: "After two years in the United States Army,"
In the biography section, we have the phrase "After two years in the United States Army,". That's pretty much eliding what is most likely a significant experience, especially for someone with such liberal beliefs. What did he do? (and what he thought of it?) I've had professors who were drafted into 20C wars and not one of them got within 200 miles of battlezone. They were: a tetchy requisitions clerk; a surly mechanic; a huffy guy who kept all the D-cell batteries fully charged; a linguist immune to boredom who monitored Hungarian military radio for anything besides inter-office complaining about the weather; and a member of a "troop presence" unit in Paris that nobody ever got around to giving any tasks or responsibilities to (thus freeing up everyone's time for two years of art, drink, and sex). Somewhere between those grand career options, and being a Men-In-Black ninja assassin, there are two years in mid-twenties of the life of a philosopher!! For anyone familiar with Dr Rorty's life story: full us in! Sean M. Burke (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

big mistake here
you guys claim he supports hermeneutics but:

Int: Do you still believe that epistemology should be replaced by hermeneutics?

Rorty: No, I think it was an unfortunate phrase. I wish I'd never mentioned hermeneutics. The last chapter of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature isn't very good. I think I just should have said: we ought to be able to think of something more interesting to do than keep the epistemology industry going.

src: http://www.unc.edu/%7Eknobe/rorty.html (his site)

---That said, Laurelle's "non-philosophy" still plants him squarely in the realm of philosophy "proper". Fugazilazarus (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Social Democrat
Philosource (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)I added the category "Social democrat" for Rorty. If anyone cares to cite it, the interview in the link posted below, in which he says he shares, "...Habermas vision of a social democratic utopia...", would do the job.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_postel0607

Reword the following
Please rewrite the following to make it more intelligible:

He subsequently came to reject the tradition of philosophy according to which knowledge concerns correctly representing a world whose existence remains wholly independent of those representations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.60.200 (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard Rorty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071104173604/http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=204 to http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=204

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms
"The most common criticism is that Rorty's work is self-refuting (see Nagel and Nozick for instance)"

It would be really helpful if this article explained the criticism, rather than just mentioning it. In what way is Rorty's work alleged to be self refuting? I have deleted the relevant section until it is explained. ElectricRay 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can remember Nagel referring to Rorty (but not by name) as an idealist in The View From Nowhere, but that's it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Rorty was absolutely shredded to pieces by Bernard Williams. Can somebody substantiate this? Seadowns (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Son Jay's Birthdate
The article says Rorty's first child, James (Jay) was born in 1954. The OAC, Online Archive of California, states under the collection title Rorty (Richard) Papers that James/Jay was born in 1961. It's hard to believe that a male would bother to lie about his age, but this is something that should probably be checked out and, if necessary, corrected. After all, Richard Rorty has said that he suffered from OCD. He would want every detail of his article to be correct. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)