Noëlle McAfee's 1997 interview with Richard Rorty for the public affairs show, Austin at Issue, on KLRU in Austin, Texas, in late 1997. For more background and her take on the interview, see her blog post here: gonepublic.net/...
The interviewer is Noëlle McAfee a philosopher, writer and professor at Emory University. She was arrested today protesting for gaza in solidarity with her students.
on Islamic enlightenment, ... Well we owe our knowledge of Aristotle to Muslim scholars who underwent multiple enlightenments in multiple countries... "stranger things have happened"... riiiiight
17:47 Human history is also a matter of theory. Plus historical facts are only used to build up other theories, not to mention the fallacy of a unilinear history...
Agree. She asked questions that made him uncomfortable enough to clarify his positions, but not so uncomfortable that he walked out on the interview or something.
@@FootnotesToPlatoyes! he is complicated…he ranges from deeply expressing the Deweyan approach to apparently putting words in Dewey’s mouth that undermine the enterprise. Rorty must have been fascinating patient for therapy.
Sam Harris is philosophically irrelevant. He is an entertainer, writing popular philosophy books with no influence whatsoever on current academic philosophy. Nothing wrong with that, but he should not be compared to someone like Rorty.
Sam Harris believes that there are universal truths about Human Nature that can underwrite our ethics and tell us how to live ... whereas Rorty believes that we only have cultural variations of truth, e.g., a Hindi in Bombay simply sees the world differently than a Christian in Milwaukee, and there is no independent arbiter to settle all their differences. Rorty thinks that Sam is trying to replace God with Science, and although Rorty believes that both God and the Periodic Table have been incredibly useful to human life, he doesn't believe that either can tell us with certainty how to live. In the absence of certainty, the game of value creation falls back down to earth where it is played by imperfect humans acting within the narrow assumptions of a given culture & historical era. Sorry Sam, but there is no fact about human nature that can settle the abortion debate. Our best hope, says Rorty, lies within the messy democratic tools of public persuasion and voting (at least until Sam discovers the Ultimate Truth).
@J W well said. I think Sam's views are not aging well, particularly as his friends on the left define moral truth as "agreement with them" -- anchored to almost nothing but power, control. Censorship and shaming are their favorite tools.
Great interview. I greatly admire his vision. C,I,&S was one of the most important books I read as a grad student. Love his work when I agree and when I don't, always provocative, making the rest of us think harder, which is what he probably would have wanted more than being "right" in some superficially "objective" way.
Interestingly labeled as 'comedy.' Rorty is hard medicine for most philosophers, because having read much of the canon he concludes that there are no formulas for producing great and true theories of the world, the human being or society. We're sort of winging it. That strikes many as the behavior of a spoiler-- a resignation of "the tradition." But this video is instructive because of the concrete examples (abortion, death penalty, women under the Taliban) that keep coming up. Philosophers have no better answers to those than anyone else. Philosophy can clarify the relations of concepts involved, perhaps, but the key point made here is that the traditioinal ("Plato to Kant") expectation that if people who disagree keep talking to each other in good faith they will converge on the 'best' answer which must be the *same* answer. This does not seem to play out in the sphere of politics, ethics etc . The question of truth in science being something other than just "narratives and stories we tell ourselves" (Rorty) and not provisional knowledge of the world is a tougher call. He seems at times to reject even Deweyan instrumenetalism in science, replacing warranted assertability with "coping" or "doing the best we can to get on," etc. (Putnam and Larry Hickman have both criticized him on that score).
With regard to your last sentence, I think Rorty would say that he replaced warranted assertability with coping or doing the best we can is because he is a pragmatist.
@@timothywise9731 Right. He thinks Dewey vacillates between pragmatism (e.g. Quest for Certainty) and a temptation to describe nature in metaphysical terms (e.g. Experience and Nature). He also denied that Putnam really left any room for either metaphysical or scientific realism, despite his own claims. Sarcastically, he once said, "if Putnam is a realist, then so am I." I think Putnam's hard to pin down on the issue, not least because he often revised his views. The older I get, the more I like Rorty's frankness about the empty conceits of philosophy.
I just finished that Great Course and went out and bought the transcripts so I can go back, re-listen to it, and synthesize the heck out of that course lecture with interpretive notes (hermeneutics)
ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xwNW417h494.html 26 APR 2024 11-minute interview with Emory professor Noelle McAfee about protest arrest
This guy’s thought amounts to one huge shrug in the face of the irrational fanaticism of our current world, including that of the identity politics of the American Left, and the MAGA right.
big talker.useless as a bag of rocks.bland, no passion, he aint that smart Just kidding !!!!!!! i love this guy. Need him in our schools curriculum...he tends to think working class americans are uneducated idiots, well with all due respect Mr Rorty, kiss my ass. Still love ya!! Ahead of his time
The Church Fathers had a similar starting point: They asked what could philosophy do for faith. (This is sarcasm, btw -- for anyone who doesn't get it)
scratch a Pragmatist and you get a logical positivist, you can see an elite in his hypocrisy from his academic throne here.. stating Abortion is Ok then dismissing Kant.. But death penalty opposition from the highly educated view point is right?.. irony.. if their own child is an inconvenience it can be aborted/murdered as its convenient for the pragmatist which is pragmatic (ironic) , but a child murderer being executed for their crime bothers them, Yet they support abortion,.. this starts to show to how awful pragmatism is, its nominalism in its worst dress. .. they speak of equality, but do not enforce an eye for an eye or tooth for tooth.. They are all at sea. The main point is, a pragmatist like a Logical postivist is completely lost when it comes to Value Judgements. Sure when it comes to facts pragmatists make alot of sense. But they really need to stay away from politics and trying to run society as they have NO ideals and convictions and lack universals. Avoid like the plague or you will just run Tepid.
I think people conform rather than confer. We need to redefine the roles we’ve created for people in society. The role the individual plays, the role the teacher plays or the parent or the official. We need to redefine these roles in a way that is more humane and functional to society. What we measure in society is what is killing us.
One should not necessarily look to the people on top for moral guidance, for most are at heart Machiavellian. Instead one should look at the state of the world under their 'leadership', and at the long and bloody history they have wrought upon mankind !
Being on top is not merely a matter of being more educated than those on the bottom. For sure education is important, but so is the kind of education, the opportunities available for careers, promotions, wage or salary increases, investments, one's connections (or lack thereof), political maneuvering, shrewdness, entrepreneurship, original social status, race, class, gender, work ethic, competition (or lack thereof), risk management, actual desire to compete and become powerful and/or wealthy, luck... To simply say that those on the top tend to be more educated than those on the bottom, and to imply that these more educated people at the top are more 'open-minded' -- and make no mistake, what she means is they are more enlightened and therefore more moral -- on such things as the death penalty is elitism at its worst. Actually, what it takes to get to the top has less to do with education than it does with being heartless and shrewd.
2:17 “Given that we’re American democrats, what would be the appropriate thing to say about traditional philosophical topics like truth, knowledge and rationality and so on.” Is he advocating that philosophy be the handmaiden of whatever the current regime is? Perhaps he would distinguish a philosopher from run of the mill defenders of the established order in that it is the true philosopher’s business to disabuse us about the possibility of attaining a _natural_ standpoint by which to judge the standpoints of the _conventional_ caves; that is, that ‘wisdom’ and ‘truth’ and ‘knowledge’ and even ‘nature’ are but idols of the Cave, and there is no ascent to an outside.
The problem _was_ the questions--the interviewer kept asking for absolute answers, objective yes/nos and rights/wrongs; that's apparently what you're looking for too. But Rorty spent his career telling us that we just don't get those, no matter how hard we try. They're a myth. Blindly stumbling after them, like that interviewer did and like you are, is foolish. For god's sake, go and read _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature._ It's not that hard, and shouldn't take you that long. And it'll help you understand why this interview sounded so odd, and why the problem was the (shockingly unfamiliar with Rorty's ideas) interviewer.
Of course more people in the UK wanted to reinstate the death penalty after 20 years of Thatchernomics/austerity. As the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, the generalized pain and frustration looks for scapegoats. Since the death penalty does not reduce murder rates, there is no scientific basis for the stated justification of the death penalty. But when the large majority of people are feeling pain and helpless, they desire an outlet for their feelings of anger and frustration.
Is the golden rule the closest thing to a kantian-like moral imperative? Probably not, because how people want to be treated varies wildly. The golden rule is at most a procedural ethical rule for each individual and/or collectives.
I'd like to hear Habermas's reaction to this. Who is to say that certain ideas should be taken off the table because folks who support the ideas or options are not "sufficiently educated." Seems to me that if one establishes such a standard, then this is not, in fact an ideal speech situation - even if that idea is the death penalty.
I don't think, by their own definition, pragmatists have any knowledge or insight at all. Democracy is not reason but rather compromise because of the failure to acquire political knowledge. But I thought it was objectivity Rorty disputes, yet at the end of the interview he suggests socialism and moving away from individual rights as the proper system.
The compromise resides in his socialist bent. Whatever individual rights we do or do not have are not objective. They are products of culture. The compromise he sees as most beneficial to the country is the sacrifice of raising taxes and redistributing wealth. If you hold too strongly to the ideal that you objectively own or deserve certain things, our ability to compromise is compromised.
AndrewTheRed You don't seem to understand pragmatism, especially not Rorty's articulation. Pragmatists don't eschew the idea of knowledge. A pragmatist would say something along the lines that a description/vocabulary/belief can only be said to constitute knowledge to the degree that it pays dividends. It must work in practice, make an actual difference, be actionable. As for the socialism bit, Idk. I'm not a policy wonk and I have no moral objections to taxing the rich more, just practical concerns regarding what level of taxation we could put in place before revenue started to decrease or a we accidentally get short sighted and rank the private sector.
Pragmatism might be a viable political philosophy for the educated, disciplined individual, but for those who are at the bottom of the intellectual food chain, what internal barrier or buffer exists to keep them from pillaging the hell out of others who have what they want? Couldn't be conscience because that's a powerless construct against abject selfishness. "Do unto others" is pointless unless there are harsh physical consequences awaiting the offenders. I am thinking that in a society of practicing pragmatists, there will be ever-expanding prison systems.
I like his advise on stepping back from an objective claim to political truths and instead grounding arguments on facts and narratives. That can do American politics and politics in general a lot of good
Yes they do. But in social science it helps to not be absolute in categories. What he means is taking your political (ideological) opponents in good faith. And be modest and circumspect in your own claims..
+Olivia Casey It looks like the poem mentioned by Rorty at 16:45 by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is, "Similar Cases": www.bartleby.com/380/poem/222.html In the video Rorty says, "The substance of the poem is, when the first fish crawled out of the sea, the other fish said, 'C'mon, you can't change your nature.'" The poem doesn't actually mention fish though. He makes the same point in his essay, "Feminism and Pragmatism", footnote 30.
+Olivia Casey Not sure if the poem will paste and fit on a comment, but here it goes: Similar CasesBy Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935) THERE was once a little animal, No bigger than a fox, And on five toes he scampered Over Tertiary rocks. They called him Eohippus, 5 And they called him very small, And they thought him of no value, When they thought of him at all; For the lumpish old Dinoceras And Coryphodon so slow 10 Were the heavy aristocracy In days of long ago. Said the little Eohippus, “I am going to be a horse, And on my middle finger-nails 15 To run my earthly course. I’m going to have a flowing tail; I’m going to have a mane; I’m going to stand fourteen hands high On the psychozoic plain!” 20 The Coryphodon was horrified, The Dinoceras was shocked, And they chased young Eohippus, But he skipped away and mocked. Then they laughed enormous laughter, 25 And they groaned enormous groans, And they bade young Eohippus Go view his father’s bones. Said they: “You always were as small And mean as now we see, 30 And that’s conclusive evidence That you’re always going to be.” “What! be a great, tall, handsome beast, With hoofs to gallop on? Why! you’d have to change your nature!” 35 Said the Loxolophodon. They considered him disposed of, And retired with gait serene; That was the way they argued In “the early Eocene.” 40 There was once an Anthropoidal Ape, Far smarter than the rest, And everything that they could do He always did the best; So they naturally disliked him, 45 And they gave him shoulders cool, And when they had to mention him They said he was a fool. Cried this pretentious Ape one day, “I’m going to be a Man, 50 And stand upright, and hunt, and fight And conquer all I can; I’m going to cut down forest trees, To make my houses higher; I’m going to kill the Mastodon; 55 I’m going to make a fire!” Loud screamed the Anthropoidal Apes With laughter wild and gay; They tried to catch that boastful one, But he always got away. 60 So they yelled at him in chorus, Which he minded not a whit; And they pelted him with coconuts, Which didn’t seem to hit. And then they gave him reasons 65 Which they thought of much avail, To prove how his preposterous Attempt was sure to fail. Said the sages, “In the first place, The thing cannot be done; 70 And, second, if it could be, It would not be any fun. And, third, and most conclusive, And admitting no reply, You would have to change your nature! 75 We should like to see you try.” They chuckled then triumphantly, These lean and hairy shapes, For these things passed as arguments With the Anthropoidal Apes. 80 There was once a Neolithic Man, An enterprising wight, Who made his chopping implements Unusually bright; Unusually clever he, 85 Unusually brave, And he drew delightful Mammoths On the borders of his cave. To his Neolithic neighbors, Who were startled and surprised, 90 Said he: “My friends, in course of time We shall be civilized; We are going to live in cities; We are going to fight in wars; We are going to eat three times a day 95 Without the natural cause; We are going to turn life upside down About a thing called gold; We are going to want the earth, and take As much as we can hold; 100 We are going to wear great piles of stuff Outside our proper skins; We are going to have Diseases! And Accomplishments!! And Sins!!!” Then they all rose up in fury 105 Against their boastful friend, For prehistoric patience Cometh quickly to an end. Said one, “This is chimerical! Utopian! Absurd!” 110 Said another, “What a stupid life! Too dull, upon my word!” Cried all, “Before such things can come, You idiotic child, You must alter Human Nature!” 115 And they all sat back and smiled. Thought they, “An answer to that last It will be hard to find!” It was a clinching argument To the Neolithic Mind! 120
if rorty were still alive, i have serious doubts on how he should still carry on with his relativism in terms of moral justification, in face of contemporary politics. i believe he would be more sympathetic to habermas by now.
As if a democracy could never become tyrannical. The tyranny of Athens over its neighbors was well established until brought to an end by its defeat at the hands of the Spartans. Moreover, it was that same democracy that sentenced Socrates to death. No, a democracy is always answerable to something higher than itself -- as in 'One nation under God'.
For being so smart, Rorty has no idea what a democracy is or he's never read the US constitution since it never mentions democracy at all, however it does mention Republicanism (Article 4 Section 4). Maybe he's just never read the document or has never read any classical literature explicitly describing what a democracy is. After all, democracy did not last 100 years in Athens where is was first invented, and there's clear reason why our forefathers did not choose it, and instead adopted a Republican form of government. People harang over the threat to democracy in Ukraine but even Google will tell you that Ukraine has a Republican form of government and not a democracy. I am also glad that Rorty was able to explain how wealth redistribution has worked so well in so many socialist/communist countries [sarcasm]
It's funny how those who attempt to give a relativistic definition of truth treat their own definition of truth as if it were itself an obvious and absolute truth.
I think Rorty perhaps overstates the effect of cultural evolution on biological traits ("human nature"). I'm not even sure that is what he is doing, but if he is, it's an overstatement.
