The Rorty Discussion with Donald Davidson - Part 3 of 6

Because to be frank, it is not excellent. I have nothing but respect for both of these men. But Davidson doesn't really say much at all, and the things he says are rather trite and uninteresting. For example that many confuse being true with thinking it is true, or saying two contradictory things can be true at the same time...

Well, I have never, ever read a single philosophical position of interest that makes such an obsenely watered down claim.

My observation was mainly to point out the level of depth in arguments that are being exchanged. It is an excellent debate in dialectic terms imho.
I think Davidson does make a worthy representative of the analytical tradition and they battle on the very distinctions between what might be fundamental different worldviews in thinking instead of harping down straw-persons and red herrings.

I fail to see a whole lot of depth being exchanged here, but in any case both are great minds. Rorty was very respectful, since he is probably the most historically versed of the two; while Davidson seemed rather limited to discussing very general platitudes in a rather lax manner. No shame in this, since the nature of his work is highly technical. As far as dialogs go, this one isn't particularly substantial, however.

Davidson doesn't seem very good in all the interviews I've read, though he conducts himself reasonably and charitably in this debate.

However, the ideas in his books and essays are quite interesting and original indeed.