Rorty on Truth

[qadirian]

Ayn Rand... The perfect example of why women don't make good philosophers

[1991stacy]

@qadirian Why is that? Just because she happens to be a woman? That's like saying "Hitler.. the perfect example of why men shouldn't be in politics."

[ichiboku1]

@Omnicron777 where are you getting your definition of pragmatism? I don't think John Dewey would agree with this characterization of "utility." Pragmatists are NOT committed to the proposition: something is only true if it works. Though pragmatists do in fact say things along those lines they can be easily misrepresented without looking at the details of what "works" means. Dewey addressed this issue directly.

[LoquaciousApe]

@Omnicron777 Let me refine the example I gave in my previous comment: "X is not true, because if it was, then all my beliefs would be shattered." That represents the classic appeal to consequence.

[LoquaciousApe]

@Omnicron777 By your reasoning, you might as well call the entire scientific endeavor an appeal to consequence, which it is not. An appeal to consequence refers to the irrational dismissal of a premise because its conclusions are inconsistent with your ideals, to phrase it differently. As I said earlier, the pragmatist doesn't dismiss the premise offhand (irrationally), but tests its utility, and then dismisses it or approves it depending on the test's outcome.

[LoquaciousApe]

@Omnicron777 You don't understand what argumentum ad consequentiam is, do you? An appeal to consequence is motivated by emotional preference: e.g., "X is not true because I don't like its implications". The pragmatist approach is one that tests a premise and then determines its truth based on its utility.

[cptgulliver]

It's all Rorty to me

[flipmaya]

discussing philosophy in youtube is pointless. If people want to make counter arguments, publish and article or a book. You could be more in depth since there's no character limit.

[powermikertje]

@flipmaya what's your philosophy on that one? :P

[DrNSalmon]

It is unfortunate that Rorty's pronouncements are frequently accepted by intellectuals, although mostly by those with little or no solid philosophical training. Rorty dismisses the ultimate objective of the noblest human intellectual pusuits with his casusal remarks to the effect that the nature of truth is ineffable. That is sheer nonsense. Worse, it is pernicious. Rorty's dismissive remarks soil the most stunning advancements, and some of the most heroic achievements, of humankind.

[BulldogComa1]

@DrNSalmon I disagree. Although truth may be spoken of in relative terms in accordance with any situation, the nature of truth is beyond words because words cannot contain reality. Only reality can contain reality.

[BlackSabotage100]

@BulldogComa1 What nature of truth? Reality isn't conscious of itself so how could it contain reality?

[mankind2112]

If you don't believe in something you'll believe anything.

[randyhelzerman]

"Just because its not relative to anything means there's nothing you can say about it" how could it possibly be said better than that? Amazing......rorty is just soooo good with words.

[AvadaKedavra1138]

Subjectivist...how do you not see that your argument is transparently self-defeating? Your argument means something only if the statements you are making are themselves true. Your sword of subjectivism skews your own argument.

[greenghost2008]

If any of you wish to see why this man is bad read atlas shurgged. almost all of the bad guys in that bok talk like this guy.

[keitaro202]

@greenghost2008

if you want to see what is bad in philosophical thinking in general....read Ayn Rand. She is a sure model of when philosophy goes wrong.

[Artlitfan]

@keitaro202 I agree. Or just skip reading her altogether because she's a simpleton compared with someone like Richard Rorty,

[ssarkis1]

@greenghost2008 hahahahahahaha

[greenghost2008]

@ssarkis1 thats what the bad guys say when they are acting like pinkos

[carlo88moe]

@greenghost2008 hahaha, my god, what a simpleton..."bad guys" lmao

[greenghost2008]

@carlo88 Bad guys, they exist.

[carlo88moe]

@greenghost2008 u r a long way from Kansas, man...

[greenghost2008]

@carlo88moe Whats funny is that I live in Wichtia,Kansas.

[efsq]

lol, people discussing philosophy on youtube comments

[S2Cents]

@efsq Why is that lol?

[MaikUniversum]

We are certain that nothing is certain... or, we know, that we can not know. Seems circular.

[bahramf]

Where does he says he's certain about nothing being certain? That belief is contingent and fallible and he admits it.

It ends up resulting in a stand-off between analytic and post-analytic philosophers, and I think that's okay.

[bahramf]

It's not because we are not certain that nothing is certain and we do not know that we can not know.

You're claiming that. Not Rorty, or me.

[MaikUniversum]

@bahramf so do we know that we can not know or we don't?

[bahramf]

That's not a proper sentence, but if I know what you're getting at, look up Rorty's 'ironist' on wikipedia.

All our claims are fallible; even this claim. It's not a problem.

[MaikUniversum]

@bahramf haha, thanks, I will check it out.

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

I think Rorty's problem is that while noticing that truth is something distinct from that which is justified, he seems to ignore the way that truth as a goal is omnipresent, even if we can never say what is true. Truth is the omnipresent goal that discussion and enquiry in terms of exchanging of justifications of any structure of ideas aims at. I think instrumentalizing thought to ends in the world I think concerns that form of intellect that reaches out to know what is.

[manwaring]

I don't think LikeAGlass deserved all the comment mark downs. While I agree with Rorty, he does have a point (I believe Davidson made this in another video) that without a conception of truth inquiry makes no sense.

I don't think this is problematic for Rorty's position, but none the less it's not a bad argument.

[bahramf]

There's a difference between inquiry that seeks to end in bettering (making more just) our societal practices and social institutions and inquiry which seeks truth.

I'd say, eventually you have to pick one as more important than the other. To pick truth as more important is to say that even if the world goes to hell, I want the truth.

A senseless and dangerous position to take.

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

Hmm, but that presupposes that our understanding of justice is correct. At best we have a choice toward having inquiry aim at "truth", and having inquiry aim towards forwarding socially understood goods.

I don't think you can have an inquiry that tries to better social institutions and practises qua justice without truth, but only qua justice as understood in a given social context.

[bahramf]

Actually our basic understanding of what justice is is not actually that in need of inquiry. I don't presuppose we know that truth about what justice is as if we have acquired knowledge of the 'form' of justice, but we do know what is more and less just.

[manwaring]

@bahramf

When the best argument you come up with against something is that it is 'dangerous', I contend that the other party has won the debate.

Unless of course we're living in Orwell's 1984 :)

[bahramf]

So, if the only argument against trying to find out whether IQ levels are correlated with skin colour is that it would be dangerous, that wouldn't be enough?

This isn't a political question. You can do what you want. We're talking about what sorts of questions to ask before 'truth' searching carries on.

[renao]

A TRUE son of a bitch.

Can't find truth? Study, motherfucker!

Can't help but refuse to find truth? Don't go out saying bullshit, motherfucker!

It is so simple!

[Subjectivist]

What do you base your "truths" on dumbass? Study philosophy and the history of philosophy. A priori truths, which are the basic foundations for analytic philosophy, only satisfy the intuition of the individual but does not whatsoever augment knowledge of a truth but only mirrors what we want to believe. Simply said, when believing in a priori truths, one only have faith in his intuition's "flawless" capability in mirroring truth. Therefore Truth is redefined into not which "is" but which works.

[matthewjohnfaunce]

Well put.

[gabrielmalard]

@Subjectivist ,

Are you talking about Rorty? Did you listen to what he said? It does not appear that you really have. Pay more attention next time, I distinctly heard him say: "Truth isn't relative to anything, and because of that, there is nothing to be said about Truth". So... what are you on about a priori truths? He didn't even mention the possibility of that being valid.

[matthewjohnfaunce]

"Truth isn't relative to anything." W. James would say truth "works" , if something doesn't relate to anything, it isn't real. I thought this was the genius of W. James. He basically interchanged the meanings "the justified" and "truth" because that is the highest concept there is.* ...

[matthewjohnfaunce]

... From there action is possible, and without it action will fail. "You can say of it then either that 'it is useful because it is true' or that 'it is true because it is useful.' Both these phrases mean exactly the same thing, namely that here is an idea that gets fulfilled and can be verified." W. James.

[matthewjohnfaunce]

*A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power. That means the empiricist temper regnant and the rationalist temper sincerely given up. ... W. James

[matthewjohnfaunce]

"It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against dogma, artificiality, and the pretence of finality in truth." W. James

[TESOblivion4]

with this idea you can even make the law a science

[Israe5l]

sure language may be a maze. but world still have some structure. structure enough.

So, Rorty is left with philosophy as a department politics. R is someone I should have murdered.

[toddhollon]

The only philosopher that I can disagree with on several issues, but cannot stop listening to and reading his ideas. He has left quite a legacy.

[CraigtheCampaigner]

Rest in peace Rorty.

[armstrongw5]

will you add the layman translation pls.  k thx.

[shiningwhiffle]

Basically, it boils down to the question of how we know whether or not an idea is true or if it simply *seems* to be true. Rorty says that we *can't* know, but we can keep coming up with ideas that are more and more useful to us.

[jackib01]

Sounds a bit like 'Popperism'.

[Angk0rwat]

Not really. True with a small "t" here for Rorty is exactly what he said it is: an adjective we apply to beliefs we've justified and that justification is relative to contextual factors i.e. it "means" what we use it for in the contexts in which it's used. Your explanation packs in an acontextual view of truth that I think Rorty would have taken issue with.

What you're describing is run of the mill pragmatism, but I think Rorty's view was a little more nuanced than that.

[mapp2tube]

Thanks a million for sharing this!!

[FrostyPhilosopher]

Richard Rorty is one of my philosophical heroes. Pragmatism is one of my favorite schools of thought, plus, he was just plain badass.

[Bladdacker]

i couldn't agree more