DOCSLIB.ORG

Richard Rorty's Map of Political Misreading Shaun Kenan King Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Richard Rorty's Map of Political Misreading Shaun Kenan King Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Shaunkenan@Gmail.Com Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2008 Richard Rorty's map of political misreading Shaun Kenan King Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation King, Shaun Kenan, "Richard Rorty's map of political misreading" (2008). LSU Master's Theses. 523. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/523 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RICHARD RORTY’S MAP OF POLITICAL MISREADING A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of Political Science by Shaun King B.A., Campbell University, 2005 August, 2008 FOR DANIELLE ii Acknowledgements This master’s thesis would not have been possible without the trust, support, and direction that Dr. Cecil Eubanks has given me for over a year. His thoughtful criticisms and provocations have helped me connect ideas and transition between them better than I could ever have done without him. Dr. James Stoner and Dr. William Clark were kind enough to provide commentary and questions that I hope to pursue further as I extend this project. Dr. Neil Gross and Dr. Stanley Fish corresponded with me briefly, but their contributions confirmed my intuitions. As an editor, Ms. Susanna Dixon combed through the fibers of my thesis with a meticulousness I cherish. iii Table of Contents DEDICATION .…………………………………………………………………………………...ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………………...iii ABSTRACT .……………………………………………………………………………...………v CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………..1 CHAPTER 2. RORTY’S PECULIAR PRAGMATISM …………………………………….…17 CHAPTER 3. RORTY AND ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY ...………..………………………...33 CHAPTER 4. THE PRIORITY OF HAROLD BLOOM ……………………………………....61 CHAPTER 5. RORTY’S WEDGE BETWEEN LIBERALISM AND COMMUNITARIANISM ……….………………………………………….....………………..89 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………..107 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………113 VITA.………………………………………………………………...…………………………120 iv Abstract For more than a quarter century, Richard Rorty was one of the most controversial writers. Critics of Rorty have often clustered their remarks around distinct themes within Rorty’s body of literature. Is Rorty’s criticism of the correspondence theory of truth valid and what standard of validity could confirm that? Does Rorty’s treatment of pragmatists such as William James and John Dewey accurately reflect their writings? Is Rorty’s brand of liberalism defensible when it assumes no non-circular form of justification can be proffered? These are the questions most often addressed by Rorty’s critics. He responded to their objections for two decades. By taking a synoptic view of Rorty’s literary corpus, my goal is to change a few of the questions being asked and offer criticism of Rorty’s texts predicated on the validity of a new cluster of questions. I offer a reading of Rorty’s political theories that places Rorty’s debt to the literary critic Harold Bloom’s concepts higher than his avowed affiliation with pragmatism. I argue that in order to understand the nature of Rorty’s affiliation with pragmatism it is best to understand how Rorty was profoundly influenced by a cluster of Bloom’s concepts. These concepts include, “belatedness,” “anxiety,” “influence,” “strong poet,” “precursor,” and “misreading.” I propose a reading of Rorty’s text which, when taken together, make Bloom’s influence on Rorty central. I describe five features that make Rorty’s pragmatism peculiar. Next, I move to a discussion of Rorty’s exchanges with Donald Davidson revealing Rorty’s adaptations, contradictions, and peculiar allegiance to pragmatism. Next, I explain that allegiance by placing Bloom as the central figure in the late development of Rorty’s writings on the division of the private realm of self-creation and the public realm of solidarity. Finally, I discuss how Bloom’s concepts help explain how Rorty has wedged himself in a peculiar way between Rawlsian v liberalism and communitarianism. Although Bloom is central, his centrality does not make Rorty’s writings more coherent. Placing Bloom at the center explains some of Rorty’s peculiarities while it raises other problems. vi Chapter 1: Introduction If Frederick Nietzsche wanted to be considered philosophy’s Hamlet, then we may want to consider Richard Rorty as philosophy’s Shakespeare. Just as Nehamas argues, “Nietzsche created a character out of himself,”1 so too does Rorty. At the height of his career, Rorty embraced a kind of poetic playfulness which opened itself up to both inconsistency and multiplicity. Marjorie Garber writes, “Every age creates its own Shakespeare.”2 Every age does this by finding in Shakespeare something right for that age. What makes Shakespeare endlessly present is his multiplicity. Shakespeare’s only coherence is the world of possibilities he unleashes.3 In Nietzsche’s words, “the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our ‘concept’ of this thing, our ‘objectivity’ be.”4 Richard Rorty presents himself as the stage writer for the philosopher-as-actor. They all audition for philosophy’s Shakespeare. Rorty’s writings are meta-philosophical, in that, they concern themselves with the conditions under which philosophy is either possible or relevant. Unsatisfied with metaphilosophical criticism, Rorty wrote substantively and controversially about democratic discourse. By the end of his career, Rorty knowingly embraced inconsistency. He may have believed that inconsistency was akin to multiplicity and that multiplicity would keep his writings relevant in the future’s uncertainty. 1 Nehamas, Alexander. Nietzsche: Life As Literature. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), 233. 2 Garber, Marjorie. Shakespeare After All. (New York: Anchor Books, 2004), 28. 3 For a more an approach that tries to balance philosophical realism with something closer to Harold Bloom’s theory that Shakespeare is the strongest of ‘strong poets’ see, McGinn, Colin. Shakespeare’s Philosophy: Discovering the Meaning Behind the Plays. (New York: Harper Perennial, 2006). Note especially his reflections on Harold Bloom’s interpretation of Shakespeare (202-04). 4 Nietzsche, Frederick. On the Genealogy of Morals reprinted in Basic Writings of Nietzsche, trans. and ed. Walter Kauffman. (New York: The Modern Library, 1992), 555. 1 Nehamas has been reading Rorty and writing about him since Rorty wrote Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. At some time, around the publication of Rorty’s Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Nehamas lost track of Rorty. In reviewing the latter publication, Nehamas notes that Rorty has “A touch of the poet,” and is “writing with vision.”5 However, Nehamas makes two errors in reviewing Rorty that I want to expose as part of my argument about recasting Rorty in the proper light. First, Nehamas quotes Rorty who writes, “Since truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.” 6 However, Nehamas criticizes it without considering the context within which it is presented. Nehamas says in response to Rorty, “reasons don’t seem to be created in the same way words are,” but this is exactly what Rorty leaves open for us when he writes, “Truth cannot be out there – cannot exist independently of the human mind – because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.”7 Giving descriptions that can either be true or false is another way of saying that reasons can be true or false, but Rorty’s explanation of descriptions are that they can be true or false and their truth or falsity is appraised as such, not by checking them against the world or reality or the forms or nature or God, but rather by the way they fit within our vocabulary. Our vocabulary as a whole is more or less useful in coping with the world. This is something that Nehamas agrees with, yet seen in this context, Nehamas is objecting to Rorty’s phrasing of the syllogism in question. Why – the question needs to be asked – does Rorty phrase it that way? Nehamas’ criticism capitalizes on the pithiness of Rorty’s syllogism: “since truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and 5 Nehamas, Alexander. “A touch of the poet.” Raritan 10, no. 1 (1990):104-25. 6 Ibid., 110.; Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 9. 7 Ibid., 110.; Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, 5. 2 since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths.” Eight years earlier, before Rorty aligned with the poets against philosophers (something I will explain in chapter four), Nehamas was calling Rorty’s writings, “understated eloquence, argumentative depth and moral seriousness, with vision as well as with style.”8 Yet eight years later, Nehamas still refers to Rorty as someone who has a “vision,” but now Nehamas has reversed much of what he said earlier. Instead of “depth and moral seriousness,” the Rorty of Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity “tends to take too many things at face value;” Rorty gives us a “hermeneutics of credulity.”9 More than any philosopher of the twentieth century, Rorty has been reviled. He recounts much of his criticisms in an autobiographical reflection: If there is anything to the idea that the best intellectual position is one which is attacked with equal vigor from the political right and the political left, then I am in good shape.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geuss-On-Rorty.Pdf
    Richard Rorty at Princeton: Personal Recollections RAYMOND GEUSS When i arrived in Princeton during the 1970s my addiction to tea was already long-standing and very well entrenched, but I was so concerned about the quality of the water in town that I used to buy large containers of allegedly “pure” water at Davidson’s—the local supermarket, which seems now to have gone out of business. I didn’t, of course, have a car, and given the amount of tea I consumed, the trans- port of adequate supplies of water was a highly labor-inten- sive and inconvenient matter. Dick and Mary Rorty must have noticed me lugging canisters of water home, because, with characteristic generosity, they developed the habit of call- ing around at my rooms in 120 Prospect, often on Sunday mornings, offering to take me by car to fill my water bottles at a hugely primitive and highly suspicious-looking outdoor water tap on the side of a pumphouse which was operated by the Elizabethtown Water Company on a piece of waste land near the Institute Woods. This pumphouse with its copiously dripping tap was like something out of Tarkhovski’s film about Russia after a nuclear accident, Stalker, and the sur- rounding area was a place so sinister one half expected to be attacked by packs of dogs in the final stages of radiation sick- ness or by troops of feral children who had been left by their parents to fend for themselves while the parents went off to the library to finish their dissertations.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty's Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism
    Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Occasional Papers Series Series Editor Tony Saich Deputy Editor Jessica Engelman The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion. By training the very best leaders, developing powerful new ideas, and disseminating innovative solutions and institutional reforms, the Center’s goal is to meet the profound challenges facing the world’s citizens. The Ford Foundation is a founding donor of the Center. Additional information about the Ash Center is available at ash.harvard.edu. This research paper is one in a series funded by the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The views expressed in the Ash Center Occasional Papers Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series are intended to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. This paper is copyrighted by the author(s). It cannot be reproduced or reused without permission. Ash Center Occasional Papers Tony Saich, Series Editor Something Has Cracked: Post-Truth Politics and Richard Rorty’s Postmodernist Bourgeois Liberalism Joshua Forstenzer University of Sheffield (UK) July 2018 Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation Harvard Kennedy School Letter from the Editor The Roy and Lila Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation advances excellence and innovation in governance and public policy through research, education, and public discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Overcoming the Tradition: Heidegger and Dewey Author(S): Richard Rorty Source: the Review of Metaphysics , Dec., 1976, Vol
    Overcoming the Tradition: Heidegger and Dewey Author(s): Richard Rorty Source: The Review of Metaphysics , Dec., 1976, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Dec., 1976), pp. 280-305 Published by: Philosophy Education Society Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/20126921 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Philosophy Education Society Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Review of Metaphysics This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:25:17 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms OVERCOMING THE TRADITION: HEIDEGGER AND DEWEY RICHARD RORTY I X HILOSOPHERS who envy scientists think that philosophy should deal only with problems formulated in neutral terms?terms satis factory to all those who argue for competing solutions. Without common problems and without argument, it would seem, we have no professional discipline, nor even a method for disciplining our own thoughts. Without discipline, we presumably have mysticism, or poetry, or inspiration?at any rate, something which permits an escape from our intellectual responsibilities. Heidegger is frequently
    [Show full text]
  • György Pápay: Pragmatism and the Ordinary: the Rorty-Putnam Debate
    PRAGMATISM AND THE ORDINARY: The Rorty-Putnam Debate from a Different Angle 1 György Pápay E-mail: [email protected] In his essay „Philosophy and Ordinary Experience” Stanley Rosen claims that when philosophers become increasingly interested in the question of the Ordinary— ordinary language or ordinary experience—it always indicates a crisis of philosophy. Both the phenomenological and the analytical school of modern philosophy included important thinkers who supposed that philosophical activity as such had reached a theoretical dead end, and therefore urged a return to the Ordinary. This enterprise itself can be carried out in a more or less theoretical way. The more theoretical approach is represented by Husserl or Heidegger. The less or sometimes even antitheoretical way of returning to the Ordinary is exemplified by Oxonian philosophers such as Ryle and Austin, and the later Wittgenstein. As Rosen adds, „Perhaps it would be fair to classify pragmatist like James and Dewey in this camp.” 2 Although the latter suggestion is not indisputable, I think Rosen has a point. If we put the scientistic vein aside that is common in some works of Peirce, Dewey and Sidney Hook, classical pragmatism with its firm critique of metaphysical dualisms and its emphasis on the practical character of human concerns could be seen as a philosophical movement that takes side with everyday life rather than pure theory. However, my aim is not to consider whether this classification of James and Dewey proves to be useful. I would rather focus on two influental contemporary pragmatists, Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, and especially on their relation to the question of the Ordinary.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Rorty's Irony Seriously
    Humanities 2013, 2, 292–312; doi:10.3390/h2020292 OPEN ACCESS humanities ISSN 2076-0787 www.mdpi.com/journal/humanities Article Taking Rorty’s Irony Seriously Andrew Inkpin School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia; E-Mail: [email protected] Received: 4 May 2013; in revised form: 26 May 2013 / Accepted: 6 June 2013 / Published: 12 June 2013 Abstract: Richard Rorty’s Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (CIS) is an ambitious and provocative, but for many readers a deeply flawed work. This paper argues that many of its apparent flaws can be understood as integral to Rorty’s attempt to write a work of private, post-theoretical irony. The paper’s first section outlines the substantive theoretical claims about language, selfhood and community which Rorty proposes as an antiessentialist alternative to ‘metaphysics’. The second identifies three difficulties—residual dualism, conceptual problems with the public-private distinction, and the work’s self-referential consistency—which constitute serious, but obvious problems for those substantive claims. The third section argues that Rorty’s metaphilosophical discussion of ‘ironist theory’ suggests CIS should be read as a personal work of irony which eschews theoretical ambitions, showing how this is consistent with and provides a motive for accepting the presence of conspicuous difficulties. The final section considers how the work’s metaphilosophical views interact with its substantive theoretical claims. The work’s irony is interpreted as resulting from the tension between these, so as to coexist rather than conflict with Rorty’s enduring commitments to liberalism and pragmatism. Keywords: Rorty; irony; metaphilosophy; pragmatism; continental philosophy 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Rorty
    Richard Rorty Reprinted from Philosophy and Social Hope (Penguin Books, 1999) If there is anything to the idea that the best in- tellectual position is one which is attacked with equal vigor from the political right and the political left, then I am in good shape. I am often cited by conservative culture warriors as one of the relativistic, irrationalist, deconstructing, sneering, smirking intellectuals whose writings are weakening the moral fibre of the young. Neal Kozody, writing in the monthly bulle- tin of the Committee for the Free World, an organization known for its vigilance against symp- toms of moral weakness, denounces my 'cynical and nihilistic view' and says 'it is not enough for him [Rorty] that American students should be merely mindless; he would have them posi- tively mobilized for mindlessness'. Richard Neuhaus, a theologian who doubts that atheists can be good American citizens, says that the 'ironist vocabulary' I advocate 'can neither pro- vide a public language for the citizens of a democracy, nor contend intellectually against the enemies of democracy, nor transmit the reasons for democracy to the next generation'. My criticisms of Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind led Harvey Mansfield - recently appointed by President Bush to the National Council for the Humanities - to say that I have 'given up on America' and that I 'manage to diminish even Dewey'. (Mansfield recently de- scribed Dewey as a 'medium-sized malefactor'.) His colleague on the council, my fellow phi- losopher John Searle, thinks that standards can only be restored to American higher education if people abandon the views on truth, knowledge and objectivity that I do my best to inculcate.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard Rorty Papers MS.C.017
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt9p3038mq Online items available Guide to the Richard Rorty Papers MS.C.017 Dawn Schmitz Special Collections and Archives, University of California, Irvine Libraries 2016 The UCI Libraries P.O. Box 19557 University of California, Irvine Irvine 92623-9557 [email protected] URL: http://special.lib.uci.edu Guide to the Richard Rorty Papers MS.C.017 1 MS.C.017 Language of Material: English Contributing Institution: Special Collections and Archives, University of California, Irvine Libraries Title: Richard Rorty papers Creator: Rorty, Richard Identifier/Call Number: MS.C.017 Physical Description: 24.3 Linear Feet(61 boxes and 1 oversized folder) Date (inclusive): 1863-2003 Date (bulk): bulk Language of Material: The collection is primarily in English, with some materials in other languages, particularly German and French. Abstract: Richard Rorty (1931-2007) was a pragmatist philosopher, critical theorist, and public intellectual. This collection comprises manuscripts, teaching files, professional correspondence, research notes, biographical material, and ephemera. It also includes some family papers and correspondence, as well as writings dating to his youth. The collection includes digital files transferred from Rorty's computer disks and made available to researchers electronically. http://ucispace.lib.uci.edu/handle/10575/7 Access The collection is open for research, with the exception of some materials relating to students in Series 5, Teaching files. Restrictions on the earliest of these student records will be lifted beginning in 2033. Publication Rights Property rights reside with the University of California. Literary rights are retained by the creators of the records and their heirs.
    [Show full text]
  • Rorty Nineteenth Century Idealism and Twentieth Century Textualism.Pdf
    NINETEENTH-CENTURY IDEALISM AND TWENTIETH-CENTURY TEXTUALISM Author(s): Richard Rorty Source: The Monist , APRIL, 1981, Vol. 64, No. 2, Nineteenth-Century Thought Today (APRIL, 1981), pp. 155-174 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/27902689 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Monist This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Sat, 27 Jun 2020 15:22:14 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms NINETEENTH-CENTURY IDEALISM AND TWENTIETH-CENTURY TEXTUALISM I In the last century there were philosophers who argued that nothing ex ists but ideas. In our century there are people who write as if there were nothing but texts. These people, whom I shall call "textualists," include for example, the so-called Yale school of literary criticism centering around Harold Bloom, Geoffrey Hartmann, and Paul De Man, "post-structuralist" French thinkers like Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, historians like Hayden White, and social scientists like Paul Rabinow. Some of these people take their point of departure from Heidegger, but usually the influence of philosophers is relatively remote.
    [Show full text]
  • Giovanna Borradori 1 PO Box 136 — Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 Office: (845) 437-5535 — Mobile: (917) 957-9142 — E-Mail: [email protected]
    Giovanna Borradori 1 PO Box 136 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 Office: (845) 437-5535 Mobile: (917) 957-9142 E-mail: [email protected] Education • Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondis, Université de Paris VIII – Vincennes-à-Saint Denis, 1988. Thèse: La Pensée Post-Philosophique. • Dottore in Filosofia, Summa cum Laude, Università degli Studi di Milano, 1985. Tesi: Estetica Americana Contemporanea tra Modernità e Oltrepassamento. Areas of Specialization • 19th-and 20th-Century Continental Philosophy • Social and Political Philosophy • Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Architecture Areas of Competence • History of Ancient Greek Philosophy Languages • Fluent: French, Italian, and Spanish • Reading knowledge of German, ancient Greek, and Latin Employment • Chair of the Philosophy Department, Vassar College 2012-2016 • Visiting Professor, Université Jean -Moulin Lyon 3, Lyon, France Spring 2016 • Full Professor, Vassar College 2005-Present • Visiting Professor, International University College of Turin, Italy Fall 2009, Spring 2011, 2012 • Visiting Professor, The Graduate School of Architecture, Columbia Spring 2000 University • Associate Professor, Vassar College 2000-2005 • Assistant Professor, Vassar College 1995-2000 • Visiting Assistant Professor, Vassar College 1991-1993, Spring 1995 • Adjunct Lecturer at Hunter College (CUNY) 1990-1991 1 Giovanna Borradori 2 PO Box 136 Poughkeepsie, NY 12604 Office: (845) 437-5535 Mobile: (917) 957-9142 E-mail: [email protected] Grants and Fellowships • Ford Scholar, Vassar College Summer 2016 • Lucretia
    [Show full text]
  • Consequences of Pragmatism University of Minnesota Press, 1982
    estratto dal volume: RICHARD RORTY Consequences of Pragmatism University of Minnesota Press, 1982 INTRODUCTION 1. Platonists, Positivists, and Pragmatists The essays in this book are attempts to draw consequences from a prag- matist theory about truth. This theory says that truth is not the sort of thing one should expect to have a philosophically interesting theory about. For pragmatists, “truth” is just the name of a property which all true statements share. It is what is common to “Bacon did not write Shakespeare,” “It rained yesterday,” “E equals mc²” “Love is better than hate,” “The Alle- gory of Painting was Vermeer’s best work,” “2 plus 2 is 4,” and “There are nondenumerable infinities.” Pragmatists doubt that there is much to be said about this common feature. They doubt this for the same reason they doubt that there is much to be said about the common feature shared by such morally praiseworthy actions as Susan leaving her husband, Ameri- ca joining the war against the Nazis, America pulling out of Vietnam, Socrates not escaping from jail, Roger picking up litter from the trail, and the suicide of the Jews at Masada. They see certain acts as good ones to perform, under the circumstances, but doubt that there is anything gen- eral and useful to say about what makes them all good. The assertion of a given sentence—or the adoption of a disposition to assert the sentence, the conscious acquisition of a belief—is a justifiable, praiseworthy act in certain circumstances. But, a fortiori, it is not likely that there is something general and useful to be said about what makes All such actions good-about the common feature of all the sentences which one should ac- quire a disposition to assert.
    [Show full text]
  • Heidegger's Basic Assumptions
    Daniel O. Dahlstrom Heidegger’s Basic Assumptions If we improve our understanding of ordinary talk of physical things, it will not be by reducing that talk to a more familiar idiom; there is none. It will be by clarifying the connections, causal or otherwise, between ordinary talk of physical things and various further matters, which in turn we grasp with help of ordinary talk of physical things. W. V. O. Quine, Word and Object1 In Being and Time Heidegger sets out from three assumptions: first, that we generally have some understanding of what it means to be, some sense of being; second, that this understanding matters to us and, in an essential way, constitutes our manner of being; and third, that we are capable of giving an appropriate analysis or interpretation of this understanding.2 These are by no means the only suppositions driving the project begun in Being and Time but they certainly figure among its most basic assumptions. The first of these assumptions is Heidegger’s „preontological“ and „preexistential“ assumption, the second his „existential“ assumption, and the third his „ontological“ assumption. These basic assumptions, moreover, exhibit an order that is equally basic to Heidegger’s project at the time. The existential assumption presupposes the preontological assumption and his fundamental ontology presupposes the existential character of our preontological sense of being. Despite an increasing appreciation of the relevance of many of Heidegger’s investigations to concerns of contemporary analytic philosophers, these basic assumptions continue to be roundly viewed with a mixture of suspicion and bemusement. It would be extremely difficult – and no attempt will be made here – to give an adequate explanation of all the reasons for this recalcitrance.
    [Show full text]
  • On a Man Who Died from Reading Too Much Heidegger, Or Richard Rorty As a Reader
    6 $# , "$ $ Editions Rodopi Vol. 11, No. 1 (June 2014), 115–129 ©2014 On a Man Who Died from Reading Too Much Heidegger, or Richard Rorty as a Reader Wojciech Małecki If, as is sometimes held, Wittgenstein wrote as if he had read nothing, while Heidegger wrote as if had read everything, then the common opinion about Richard Rorty is that he wrote as if he had $read everybody. In my paper, I will try to show that in order to assess whether that opinion is right, it is imperative to have at least some knowledge of the different hermeneutic strategies Rorty distin- guished, endorsed, and deployed. What I am also going to do is explain what reading Heidegger had to do with Rorty’s death. “He was born, he worked, and he died.” So goes Martin Heidegger’s famous biographical remark on Aristotle,1 and while this formula is in principle applicable to Richard Rorty too, in his case it might as well say, “He was born, he , and he died.” This is how important reading was to Rorty, on both a personal, and a scholarly level. This essay will deal primarily with the latter, but I would like to begin with the former, taking as my starting point Rorty’s “Intellectual Autobiography,” published in the volume of the 05 02 " ,# dedicated to his work. As its cautious readers should remember quite well, that narrative opens with the words, “I have spent my life rummaging through libraries,”2 the liminal position of which certainly gives them a ring of defining statement.
    [Show full text]