@greenghost2008 Rorty's take was that Truth, in its strictest philosophical sense, is ultimately unjustifiable because it cannot be quantified without self-referential justifications. From this, he concludes that justification is all that people can talk about meaningfully - "Justification is relative to an audience... Truth isn't relative to anything." He did not take social justification to be the criterion for truth, but social approval to be basis for justification.
Once again, Rorty's inconsistencies are the last he is able to examine. Obviously, Rorty may be a pragmatist but unlike William James he is unable to understand the PSYCHOLOGICAL point of view that guides the research of VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.
What do yo mean he's not a pragmatic speaker? He's a pragmatic postmodernist philosopher. Just kidding. These guys trip me out. He's actually got a good sense of humor and irony from what I've read of him. I probably couldn't read one of his books because that philo. language can be crazy, but reading historians interpretations of his stuff is somtimes enjoyable.
does anybody know where this lecture was given? or when?
HelloHelicopter 1 year ago
He'll never make it to TED talk
abg420 1 year ago 5
I read about rorty in a book by a guy named blackburn. rorty seems to make social justification a criteria for truth. which is crazyness
greenghost2008 1 year ago
@greenghost2008
Have you thought about reading him, rather than reading about him, before you call him crazy?
ἰδιῶτα
stopEcocidE 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
GeistvonWut 1 year ago
@GeistvonWut
Would you mind elaborating your point? What, says you, characterizes a non-objectivist, and in what sense would Rorty be one?
stopEcocidE 1 year ago
@stopEcocidE Sorry, the objectivist is my brother, who was logged in to me. He's Greenghost.
GeistvonWut 1 year ago
@greenghost2008 Rorty's take was that Truth, in its strictest philosophical sense, is ultimately unjustifiable because it cannot be quantified without self-referential justifications. From this, he concludes that justification is all that people can talk about meaningfully - "Justification is relative to an audience... Truth isn't relative to anything." He did not take social justification to be the criterion for truth, but social approval to be basis for justification.
LoquaciousApe 5 months ago
@LoquaciousApe ty
greenghost2008 5 months ago
stuffy asssehole.. do the james!
ktbaby077 2 years ago
Once again, Rorty's inconsistencies are the last he is able to examine. Obviously, Rorty may be a pragmatist but unlike William James he is unable to understand the PSYCHOLOGICAL point of view that guides the research of VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES.
mitohistoriador 3 years ago
I like the random CAPITALIZING for no special reason...it lends credence. Multiple exclamation points would have worked here, too.
dantean 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this. Rorty's views on religion are very interesting for someone who is not religious. His eading of Tillich is very illuminating.
EdPBrowne 3 years ago
He's not a pragmatic speaker but he is very clever
firebreathone2 3 years ago
What do yo mean he's not a pragmatic speaker? He's a pragmatic postmodernist philosopher. Just kidding. These guys trip me out. He's actually got a good sense of humor and irony from what I've read of him. I probably couldn't read one of his books because that philo. language can be crazy, but reading historians interpretations of his stuff is somtimes enjoyable.
shumich 3 years ago
it doesn'tmake sense. you are right.
What I meant to say was : "he is not a CHARISMATIC" speaker. His lack of intonation is awful. Though, he is clearly a genius
firebreathone2 3 years ago