questions about the practical value. Rorty agrees with John Searle that many. It might broadly be termed relativism. Just as "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" had plenty of old-style analytical philosophy to keep its readers happy while they read their own obituaries, so these essays are rich in old-fashioned argumentative criticism to brighten the longueurs of Rortyan "conversation." In one of several. But there is another sense in which it is highly questionable: our theories are not, on the whole, about concepts, they are about things, so it simply does not follow that the truth of these theories is similarly invented by people. Rorty himself can stay faithful. It effectively consumed all my post-its. are followed by a discussion of the uses to which Paul de Man and his followers have put certain Derridean ideas. No doubt one day they will. (John Dewey, for example, is his biggest hero at the moment, yet he rejects Dewey's understanding of science, of truth and of philosophy itself.).
Rorty himself who in the end tries to ascend to a "God's-eye view." He seems to think he can revolutionize and dissolve traditional philosophical problems, such as that of the relation between mind and body or the problem of answering skepticism, merely by announcing that. Joni rated it really liked it admirably lucid and easy-going. The second volume pursues the themes of the first volume in the context of discussions of recent European philosophy focusing on the work of Heidegger and Derrida. Its central theme is that objectivity is a myth; each picture of reality is a product of personal or social factors, and although such pictures can be compared with one another, they cannot be compared with the world itself. The core of his form of pragmatism is the view that the concept of usefulness is more useful than the concept of truth. Science has been pretty successful even though most, if not all, of its major practitioners have taken themselves to be describing the world. The main problem with this idea is that not even. "Pragmatist" is the most important of these labels for. In fact, for the most part he uses good old-fashioned philosophical arguments to support. There is a family of ideas that forms a nebulous backdrop to much contemporary intellectual chat. Naturally, this sort of stuff goes down well with some literature professors, who now find that they own Plato and Newton as well as Shakespeare and Milan Kundera.