It is certain someone will go hungry otmorrow, and someone will make a million in one day, that is certain, and reproducable, predictable, there will be profit for some tomorrow, as it has been for centuries, So decisions are made everyday;
Yes, but 'tomorrow there will be an x that gets rich' is an existential proposition and of very very limited use for practical purposes. The type of props that matter to us as agents are particulars such as 'tomorrow x will be rich'. However there is no way to be certain beforehand whether such a proposition is true, and consequently, the same goes for any principle we deduce from it (there is no way to deduce from such cases, with certainty, which principles we ought to follow to become rich)
To claim that we do not and should not have any certainty about anything at all, is absurd, if all philosophers and scientists had thought like this, then they would not have advanced the world at all. Progress comes from an element of certainty, we are certain that we can cure some diseases, send men to the moon, create better living conditions, etc. Rorty and his gibberish, is just another example of Postmodern neo-sophistry.
You are confusing certainty with exactitude. The positive sciences rightly aim at ideals of exactitude, but it precisely the capacity to call into question general principles that allows new theories, revisions and forms of thought to emerge. To argue against certainty is not to argue against the viability of applying particular methods in science or against reliability; it is to speak against the unwillingness to call principles into question as part of intellectual endeavors.
You cannot have an exactitude without certainty, so what is your point? A certainty in curing a certain disease is a cured disease. My argument is still correct! I am not confused.
You don't need certainty to apply theories, formulas and get results. You believe that what you're doing will bring about certain results based on what you have, and that's pretty much what we can aim for. Of course we feel certain about many things; Rorty is not saying we should give up on our belief that certain methods or activities can lead to certain results, but simply that these have no reason to be based on certainty. We don't need certainty to believe that certain results will obtain.
You do need certainty in yourself and in your theories to apply them correctly in reality. Certainty as a concept is a significant aspect of ontology, epistemology and phenomenology. Obviously we cannot be certain about what we do not know about the mysterious aspects of reality and the universe. He makes the mistake of suggesting that we should not have too much certainty, it sounds defeatist and unenthusiastic.
To speak against certainty is not to speak against confidence; to be confident in what you're doing just requires for you to think you have a reasonable basis or will to act in a certain way. Certainty is for Rorty something like indubitability, that is unecessary. I don't need to think my present theories are upheld by 'certainty' to think of them useful, necessary or to have the will to believe in their results. To speak against certainty does not being defeatist.
To have any confidence in oneself requires that one has a firm belief in oneself, this means that one should have a certainty in one's own ability to consistently have a firm belief in oneself. You cannot separate certainty from confidence. Confidence without certainty is an inconsistent type of belief in oneself.
That's nonsense; we usually have confidence without certainty. If my grandmother were to fight Mike Tyson I couldn't say, strictu sensu, it was certain she was going to lose; although I might think given what I know it is unlikely it would happen. Certainty is not necessary for confidence. To say certainty is not necessary is to say we don't need to feel as if what we're doing is immune to error or revision to do it, we must be prepared to act without certainty. That's the truly hard thing.
I am not interested in your hostility, if you are going to be hostile, then find someone else to have a discussion with. How can a person have a strong belief in themselves without being certain of it? If you think that a strong belief in oneself comes from uncertainty, then you are not very clever, it is you who are deluding yourself!
I am not a positivist. This goes to show how deluded you are in your presumptions. I suppose that your deluded presumptions are due to your petty little nominalism ideology that you follow so closely.
Well, I marked my speculation concerning your philosophie de maison properly as such, so I can't be expected to retreat into territory behind my own trenches.
I only brought up nominalism as a contrast to pull your Pythagorean leg a bit. Forgive my inner troll persona, unresistingly brought out by your excessive super-egotistical affectations of intellectualism.
Are you still an akousmatikoi or already allowed to speak already?
A positivist holds that the only authentic or real knowledge of the world is that which is based on actual sense experience, they do not have time for metaphysical speculations. The reason that I do not consider myself to be a positivist is the fact that I am a strong supporter of metaphysical speculations as a means to supplement the knowledge of our sense experiences. That Krelianx character claimed that anyone could know things and do things even though they were not certain of it.
i think he's right. i have a mortgage because i beleive i will pay it off and sucseed. i dont expect to fail but typically
anything could happen. but a life time of geustimating tells me ive got a good chance of sucsess. i think the empiricist idea of experience is deeply flawed and does not hold water. it is demonstrable that much personal experience is unreliable. the power of an experience to bring about change does not vouchsafe its reliabillity.
Rorty is NOT an existentialist; in fact he is quite the opposite. Existentialism, as embodied in Sartre's ontology for example, is to systematically seek the grounds for an ontology on the basis of structural features of existence as opposed to subject-independent essence. It is another form on ontology, of which Rorty has no business in. In fact he rejects in Heidegger precisely the point at which fundamental ontology seeks founding on existentiales. Rorty is NO existentialist.
Yeah. I'm comfortable with saying that we don't act on the basis of principles (Rorty argues that Metaphysics and Epistemology have failed), but no with saying we "shouldn't"
... hhmm. I guess we've just to hit the books on this one.
Human rights is a good example of principle. Without principle the weak, the poor, the inadequate... will all be smashed by the power of the status quo. There is something enlightened about principles.
Rorty's entire philosophical ouevre is against traditional philosophical notions which would justify appeal to principle as the basis for theory. Notions such as 'truth', 'reality', 'good' and 'evil' on the basis of imperatives, positivism, the naturalization of ethics, etc. Rorty is saying that the only principle we in fact have or need are the context-dependent field of human interests and methods at hand to feel compelled to do and inquire. Proof? Read his books, not a 30 sec interview.
I do not have any 'certainty' that I will live any longer than the next few moments, but I've still got a mortgage and so did Rorty. This is merely the old sloppy and sceptical empiricism (get all the stuff about 'experience') dressed up for the vulgar middle classes.
Nice argument, man. I am a little worried, though, that you're misinterpreting Rorty's use of the word "experience". It seems to me that he's using it in this video with its general, common sense meaning of "things that happen to us", rather than as an empiricist term of art.
What you are arguing against, as far as I can tell, are consequences of Rorty's philosophy that will only be consequences if you remain committed to philosophical ideas he would prefer be dropped. You only pivot between absolute certainty and skepticism (the skepticism you ascribe to him)if you haven't really taken his project to heart.
@Kaaru What does it mean to deny reality. In another video about Posner/Dewey he says that he believes in absolute moral truths. Whether we'll ever get to them or whether there is a view from nowhere from which to judge when we've reached those truths in another question.
Overcome your fear of lackof certainty! As Rorty is saying.
VVillowz 9 months ago
The less certainty, the better. I think he is so dead on with that..
letmeplaydrums 10 months ago
could he look any lazier
stark184 10 months ago
What's wrong with pragmatism?
letmeplaydrums 11 months ago
Comment removed
ejohnwright 1 year ago
certainty shouldn't be a goal of intellectual life... what a shill.
twistedbydsign99 1 year ago
It is certain someone will go hungry otmorrow, and someone will make a million in one day, that is certain, and reproducable, predictable, there will be profit for some tomorrow, as it has been for centuries, So decisions are made everyday;
herma57 2 years ago
No, actually Hume showed why you can't be certain of any of those proposition in articulating the problem of induction.
bahramf 2 years ago
No, it's not. Have you not read Hume on the problem of induction.
bahramf 2 years ago
Yes, but 'tomorrow there will be an x that gets rich' is an existential proposition and of very very limited use for practical purposes. The type of props that matter to us as agents are particulars such as 'tomorrow x will be rich'. However there is no way to be certain beforehand whether such a proposition is true, and consequently, the same goes for any principle we deduce from it (there is no way to deduce from such cases, with certainty, which principles we ought to follow to become rich)
munkzwalm 2 years ago
Irrationalists!
stopEcocidE 2 years ago
pythagoras9, I think you're confusing confidence with certainty.
Can I be completely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow? No.
Can i be completely confident that the sun will rise tomorrow? Hell, yes; Pretty damn confident!
vegomatic123 2 years ago
Rorty is brilliant. If anyone here has only seen this video, they might want to finish a book or two of his before insulting him.
Thank you for posting this video.
apeisgod 3 years ago 2
To claim that we do not and should not have any certainty about anything at all, is absurd, if all philosophers and scientists had thought like this, then they would not have advanced the world at all. Progress comes from an element of certainty, we are certain that we can cure some diseases, send men to the moon, create better living conditions, etc. Rorty and his gibberish, is just another example of Postmodern neo-sophistry.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
You are confusing certainty with exactitude. The positive sciences rightly aim at ideals of exactitude, but it precisely the capacity to call into question general principles that allows new theories, revisions and forms of thought to emerge. To argue against certainty is not to argue against the viability of applying particular methods in science or against reliability; it is to speak against the unwillingness to call principles into question as part of intellectual endeavors.
Krelianx 3 years ago
You cannot have an exactitude without certainty, so what is your point? A certainty in curing a certain disease is a cured disease. My argument is still correct! I am not confused.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
You don't need certainty to apply theories, formulas and get results. You believe that what you're doing will bring about certain results based on what you have, and that's pretty much what we can aim for. Of course we feel certain about many things; Rorty is not saying we should give up on our belief that certain methods or activities can lead to certain results, but simply that these have no reason to be based on certainty. We don't need certainty to believe that certain results will obtain.
Krelianx 3 years ago
You do need certainty in yourself and in your theories to apply them correctly in reality. Certainty as a concept is a significant aspect of ontology, epistemology and phenomenology. Obviously we cannot be certain about what we do not know about the mysterious aspects of reality and the universe. He makes the mistake of suggesting that we should not have too much certainty, it sounds defeatist and unenthusiastic.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
To speak against certainty is not to speak against confidence; to be confident in what you're doing just requires for you to think you have a reasonable basis or will to act in a certain way. Certainty is for Rorty something like indubitability, that is unecessary. I don't need to think my present theories are upheld by 'certainty' to think of them useful, necessary or to have the will to believe in their results. To speak against certainty does not being defeatist.
Krelianx 3 years ago 3
To have any confidence in oneself requires that one has a firm belief in oneself, this means that one should have a certainty in one's own ability to consistently have a firm belief in oneself. You cannot separate certainty from confidence. Confidence without certainty is an inconsistent type of belief in oneself.
pythagoras9 3 years ago
That's nonsense; we usually have confidence without certainty. If my grandmother were to fight Mike Tyson I couldn't say, strictu sensu, it was certain she was going to lose; although I might think given what I know it is unlikely it would happen. Certainty is not necessary for confidence. To say certainty is not necessary is to say we don't need to feel as if what we're doing is immune to error or revision to do it, we must be prepared to act without certainty. That's the truly hard thing.
Krelianx 3 years ago
I am not interested in your hostility, if you are going to be hostile, then find someone else to have a discussion with. How can a person have a strong belief in themselves without being certain of it? If you think that a strong belief in oneself comes from uncertainty, then you are not very clever, it is you who are deluding yourself!
pythagoras9 3 years ago
"it sounds defeatist and unenthusiastic."
to your ears maybe. To mine it sounds relieving and calming.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Rorty was a pathetic sophist, so anything that you say to defend him will not make me have a higher opinion of him.
pythagoras9 2 years ago
good thing you have all answers already figured out and handy.
You seem to be some kind of positivist, with emphasis on quantification.
I take nominalism every day of the week over comparing something with something else and come up with an arbitrary unit.
Go find the next Mersenne prime or something :)
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
I am not a positivist. This goes to show how deluded you are in your presumptions. I suppose that your deluded presumptions are due to your petty little nominalism ideology that you follow so closely.
pythagoras9 2 years ago
Well, I marked my speculation concerning your philosophie de maison properly as such, so I can't be expected to retreat into territory behind my own trenches.
I only brought up nominalism as a contrast to pull your Pythagorean leg a bit. Forgive my inner troll persona, unresistingly brought out by your excessive super-egotistical affectations of intellectualism.
Are you still an akousmatikoi or already allowed to speak already?
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
A positivist holds that the only authentic or real knowledge of the world is that which is based on actual sense experience, they do not have time for metaphysical speculations. The reason that I do not consider myself to be a positivist is the fact that I am a strong supporter of metaphysical speculations as a means to supplement the knowledge of our sense experiences. That Krelianx character claimed that anyone could know things and do things even though they were not certain of it.
pythagoras9 2 years ago
Have we not crossed swords before in a Judith Butler comments section?
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
No!
pythagoras9 2 years ago
i think he's right. i have a mortgage because i beleive i will pay it off and sucseed. i dont expect to fail but typically
anything could happen. but a life time of geustimating tells me ive got a good chance of sucsess. i think the empiricist idea of experience is deeply flawed and does not hold water. it is demonstrable that much personal experience is unreliable. the power of an experience to bring about change does not vouchsafe its reliabillity.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
As someone pointed out in an eerlier comment, he is really an existentialist at heart.
donoharvey 3 years ago
Rorty is NOT an existentialist; in fact he is quite the opposite. Existentialism, as embodied in Sartre's ontology for example, is to systematically seek the grounds for an ontology on the basis of structural features of existence as opposed to subject-independent essence. It is another form on ontology, of which Rorty has no business in. In fact he rejects in Heidegger precisely the point at which fundamental ontology seeks founding on existentiales. Rorty is NO existentialist.
Krelianx 3 years ago 3
And why shouldn't we make decisions--at least important ones--on the basis of principle? I missed the proof for this.
qtronman 3 years ago
Yeah. I'm comfortable with saying that we don't act on the basis of principles (Rorty argues that Metaphysics and Epistemology have failed), but no with saying we "shouldn't"
... hhmm. I guess we've just to hit the books on this one.
Fichte9233 3 years ago
Human rights is a good example of principle. Without principle the weak, the poor, the inadequate... will all be smashed by the power of the status quo. There is something enlightened about principles.
Israe5l 3 years ago
Rorty's entire philosophical ouevre is against traditional philosophical notions which would justify appeal to principle as the basis for theory. Notions such as 'truth', 'reality', 'good' and 'evil' on the basis of imperatives, positivism, the naturalization of ethics, etc. Rorty is saying that the only principle we in fact have or need are the context-dependent field of human interests and methods at hand to feel compelled to do and inquire. Proof? Read his books, not a 30 sec interview.
Krelianx 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A cheap form of bourgeoisie existentialism dressed up as Analytic Philosophy.
Logicopositivi 3 years ago
Rorty is a pragmatist. Fool.
uglybunny 3 years ago 7
Lol. I guess you bitch slapped him.
Orangey222 3 years ago
You don't know what you're talking about. Stop dropping jargon you obviously don't understand, you pretentious moron.
Krelianx 3 years ago
I do not have any 'certainty' that I will live any longer than the next few moments, but I've still got a mortgage and so did Rorty. This is merely the old sloppy and sceptical empiricism (get all the stuff about 'experience') dressed up for the vulgar middle classes.
VanKoren 4 years ago
Nice argument, man. I am a little worried, though, that you're misinterpreting Rorty's use of the word "experience". It seems to me that he's using it in this video with its general, common sense meaning of "things that happen to us", rather than as an empiricist term of art.
Kaaru 4 years ago
What you are arguing against, as far as I can tell, are consequences of Rorty's philosophy that will only be consequences if you remain committed to philosophical ideas he would prefer be dropped. You only pivot between absolute certainty and skepticism (the skepticism you ascribe to him)if you haven't really taken his project to heart.
snookybutts 3 years ago
can someone explain to me how richard rorty was a birdwatcher while denying reality?
idiothek 4 years ago
Sure. He didn't deny reality.
Kaaru 4 years ago 10
congrats
idiothek 4 years ago
@Kaaru What does it mean to deny reality. In another video about Posner/Dewey he says that he believes in absolute moral truths. Whether we'll ever get to them or whether there is a view from nowhere from which to judge when we've reached those truths in another question.
bahramf 2 weeks ago
Thanks for posting this. Please post more footage if you have it available.
creaturely 4 years ago
Indeed, please post more.
groundless 4 years ago
Thank you! More, please!
Kaaru 4 years ago