Foundationalism and Coherentism: What I Think - Epistemology Video 11 

That's a very gratifying comment, thank you!

Glad to hear it! :-)

I think so, though it's hard for me to trace specific views back to their source. But he was a formative influence especially in my 20s, and I have certainly retained a lot of pragmatist sympathies, even as I started to embrace elements of Kant and other philosophers. Rorty wouldn't agree with my claims about there being necessary structures of thought, I think!

I think you're right. Rorty would probably try to make an anti-foundationalist point and say that there are no necessary structures, just conversation. At the same time, I am wondering whether Rorty might be more Kantian than he admits. For example when he follows Sellars in saying that all reports, even of sense impressions, are a linguistic affair and at the same time says that our environment has a causal influence on our views...how is that different from Kant's thing in itself to which we never have unmediated access? Sorry for the rambling - have a great day!

Well, the thing-in-itself doesn't fall under the category of causation. 😉 Did you see that I have done a series on Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity? I also have plans --but I make no hard promises-- to do something on Pragmatism as Anti-authoritarianism, which I haven't read yet but want to.

Yes, I have seen it and found it immensely helpful during my own reading of CIS! I distinctly remember learning from you that the reason why Freud is featured so heavily in CIS is because he used to be a much discussed thinker, but not so much anymore. I definitely want to learn more about Kant - thank you for pointing out that the thing-in-itself is beyond causation and the other categories. It is a little different then from what Rorty says. He would say that while we of course receive causal pressure from the environment, this does not mean we have some kind of "unmediated" access to an underlying truth. Rorty just drops the thing-in-itself, of course. But I am still wondering if the movement of thought is still not a Kantian one. It is the refusal to assume that we have unmediated access to the empirical world. Kant does it by saying "well you need your categories in order to constitute knowable experience, but you will never get to the thing-in-itself". Rorty says that "well you need language in order to talk about how the world pushes and shoves you around, but that does not mean that you get at reality *as it is in itself*" My ignorance is probably showing. I really hope that I will get to your Critique of Pure reason series at some point. It is just so very hard to study Kant "on the side". Have a great day!

@@VictorGijsbersIt would be really nice if you did a series on Pragmatism as anti-authoritarianism! I have read the first chapters and it’s a great and interesting book so far. I also loved your CIS series, as well as your other videos on Rorty! You were actually the first to introduce him to me and now he’s one of the most important influences for my own views. So thank you very much Victor!

The fly bottle that book is most likely to help you escape from is probably scepticism. In my video on responses to scepticism, coming in a week or two, I briefly discuss On Certainty!

I guess what Im saying/asking is; not all coherence frameworks are deflationalist. Or?

I just did a very cursory search, and my first impression is that Rescher defended a coherence theory of *truth*. Is that right? If so, it's a bit of a different topic than the one discussed in the video, although of course a coherence theory of truth more or less implies a coherence theory of justification (but not the other way around). Clearly, though, there are many versions of coherentism and I have absolutely not done justice to them all!

@@VictorGijsbers Actually im pretty sure Rescher brackets the question of truth per se vis a vis coherence. Coherence is a criteria, not a definition, of truth. «No profound analysis is required to see that the coherence theory as we have outlined it does not purport to give a definition of ‘truth’. Coherence is certainly not the meaning of truth.» (1961)

I love that sweater. 😎