Rorty on Truth

UPDATE: The full interview from which this clip was taken is available @ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6148968394915050958
---
Richard Rorty speaking about truth and pragmatism. Taken from "Of Beauty and Consolation" (Part 23) by Wim Kayzer, Dutch TV (VPRO) 2000.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• philosophy
• rorty
• truth
• pragmatism
• justification
• belief
• god
• nietzsche
• fact
• interpretation
• reality
• appearance

[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.

[CraigtheCampaigner]

Rest in peace Rorty.

[BlackSabotage100]

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

[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."

[qadirian]

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

[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.

[Artlitfan]

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

[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.