![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Philosophical Lexicon comment at the beginning of the article was removed as NPOV, though I think it is very deftly placed and perfectly NPOV: it summarizes Rorty in a way that is not offensive yet clever, and it gives some acknowledgement to the point of view of the clever/humorous, not to be totally upstaged by the somber/dry POV normally part of the gut reaction when creating academic biographies. In fact, I think it's a very good example of NPOV balance: this is the only place in the article as it is now where humor is really relevant, and it does its job well! — Tarnas 06:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm looking in on behalf of the Cleanup Taskforce. The article seems to me to be fairly clearly written with proper grammar and the rest. The only comment I would have is a lack of references. Is there anything else that needs to be done here? Kerowyn 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Rorty's major work is the Mirror of Nature (or something like that). I read a chapter from, but was not sure exactly how to situate it with respect to ascribing it some sort of philosophical position. The short paragraph in this article about the book greatly helped me figure out, to some extent, a starting place for figuring out Rorty's position. However, the paragraph in this article is short, stubby, and needs to be expanded upon. Rorty is an important (albeit heavily criticized) philosopher. It would be doing him justice to expand upon the section on his major works, fully explicating his philosophical positions and assertions. Kevin L. 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been re-assigned this task and I found these external links to non-English sites. I have removed these for the moment and unless there is a specific reason for it to go back in, it will not reside in the original content.
Nivus| (talk)| (desk) 10:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone erased, and I believe for no good reason, the link I had put to a critique of Rorty. Since this seems to be sincerely lacking here, I'm putting it right back. 201.50.127.26 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Again it happened. Losers; they are everywhere. 201.8.5.123 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I will keep adding the link, like you or not, until one as good or better than it is found. Rorty is a controversial man with very controversial ideas; people such as me, who do not agree with them, are entitled to have their views expressed somewhat here, or, at least, to show the dissenting view to one another. That's why I shared that adress, and will continue to do so. It personally pleases me very much that I can annoy people who are able to admire that subliterate swindler, but this is getting tiresome. 200.222.192.129 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The article originally said that Rorty was endeavoring to describe a society singularly opposed to suffering, when in actuality, no such language appears in his work. Rather, the term 'cruelty' is used. There's a fundamental difference between suffering and cruelty. One is an imposition to produce suffering, the other is a response to imposition, deliberate or not. The latter can lead to social progress when it is made into "statements of autonomy," or "private self-image" as Rorty would later rephrase it to me. As specious as the difference seems, it exists, and I think it would be a misattribution to keep 'suffering' instead of 'cruelty' in the article.
As to to the issue of eliminating suffering, the issue to which I originally responded, you are incorrect. I never said that Rorty didn't write on suffering. I said he wasn't describing a society singularly opposed to suffering. It is precisely the role of suffering you described--the response in others that prompts them to reduce cruelty--that can bring about social progress. It would also be contradictory should Rorty say we need endeavor to eliminate suffering when suffering is the very thing emphasized in works (Nabakov, Dickens, etc.) that tends to bring about social hope and progress, something partially defined by a reduction of cruelty. Suffering, however, is not insoluble with cruelty. Suffering itself can be incurred by recognizing cruelty; thus, a fundamental difference is clear. -- Kallath 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote most of this page under a former avatar, and I am happy to see how it has improved. Unfortunately, the criticism section is weasel-word central. Who are these 'some' who see things? I will try and work on this over the next few days. ParvatiBai 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't find this section very helpful - the explanation of the criticisms from the "left" and the "right" are so generally stated as to be meaningless, and the cross referencing to Nagel and Nozick doesn't help, as neither of those articles mentions the criticisms they have made of Rorty. Could someone perhaps expand on the criticisms, or provide references as to where they could be found, so I can do it? ElectricRay 09:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
PS Lang is not a right-winger. This artcile is silly to suggest that those who charge Rorty with relativism and incoherence are all right-wingers. I'm a socialist, by god, and I reject both Rorty and relativism!!-- Lacatosias 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-- For one of the most important philosophers of our day, the Rorty entry is pretty skimpy. Any ideas on where to go from here, to beef it up and give a sense of why Rorty's work is so significant?
Obviously Frege.-- Lacatosias 14:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Much is missing from this page indeed, and much needs to be fleshed out. We are dealing with a major figure here. I think the NPOV has been well applied, and we should welcome a more robust criticism section as we expand the discussion of Rorty's work. I do contest the claim that Rorty's writing is not considered to be clear, since 'most' philosophers (who are they? let's not use weasel words) are not the only readers of texts. Rorty is incredibly popular outside the academy, for the very reason that his prose is clear, even if his ideas are not always so. Cheers. ParvatiBai 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussions between colleagues (not to mention pulling rank) would fall under the category of WP:OR, not encyclopedic material. There are also professional philosophers who think that Rorty is a rigorous thinker on his own terms. That is why 'most' is a weasel word and neither you, who have talked with Rorty critics, nor I, who have talked with Rorty supporters, can use that evidence to revert the article. I would also caution you that non-professional readers of philosophy can also think, just as most non-mechanics know that "carburators" [sic] do not go in the gas tank. Cheers ParvatiBai 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, except to say that I think that ParvatiBai has it right here: the word "most" is unsubstantiated, and the defense offered by Bryan above does not hold very well. After all, everybody is entitled to be horribly wrong from time to time, even the folks at stanford, and I am having a very hard time believing that the issue here is that "clarity" needs more explanation. Keep up the good work. - Sam 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started/written a page on Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (and Ironism, and Final vocabulary). I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and so perhaps the organization could be made more mainstream. I'd appreciate the help, if anyone here has read the book.-- Heyitspeter 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I edited the page so that Pragmatist has a capital P because it refers to a specific school of philosophy, namely Pragmatism. -- Damnedkingdom
I have a bad feeling about RR being classified as an "analytical philosopher". For starters, he'd most certainly hate the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy. Secondly, he argues against many theoretical pillars of latter day hard-core analytic philosophy (think representation). I know he's trained in The Analytic Way(tm), but IMO that alone does not make him part of the gang. -- Snooweatinganima
I took a course from Rorty Winter 2005, and he characterized the situation like this: he can write analytical philosophy Monday and Wednesday, and romantic/continental philosophy Tuesday and Thursday (echoing the words of William James on belief). He definitely was on the side of the romantic/continental, but delved into writing on both sides. You have to study analytical philosophy if you set out to show why we don't need it! Also, he did use the analytical v. continental dichotamy as the main structure of the course, "the place of philosophy in culture". Mlove 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are Quine and Sellars called "post-analytic?" What is "post-analytic philosophy" supposed to be (post-logical positivism?), and how were those two figures anything but paradigmatic examples of analytic philosophers?
Right, I was wondering about that too. This awful habit of creating neologisms by adding cool prefixes should stop. It can easily be said "late analytical philosophers" or "analytical philosophers who questioned some early tenets of analytical philosophy", etc. Yet, post-analytical is clearly out of place. I hope I receive answers before I plan to change it. YoungSpinoza 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a phlosophy stub on 'postanalytic philosophy' several months ago. I feel the use of the term to describe Quine is quite appropriate--Sellars, less so. However, it is nonetheless a commonly used term to describe those who write along an analytic vein but who believe also in writing on issues that bear a social valence. Rorty, I think, is the quintessential postanalytic philosopher in this sense. Not all 'postanalytic thinkers,' however, must disavow analytic philosophy such as Rorty has. It's simply a loosely used term to describe such detachments and to deter the use of the term 'postmodern' for the same sorts of ascriptions. -- Kallath 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Rorty's master's thesis, which prepared the way for his doctoral dissertation, was on Whitehead. It was called “Whitehead's Use of the Concept of Potentiality.” (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1952). His work at Chicago was NOT strictly analytic, as Whitehead and Dewey had pronounced influences on the school. Through Hartshorne and others, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't have had significant introductions into American Philosophy. (Not everyone seems to be aware that Whitehead is a significant contributor to American Philosophy, with many parallels to Peirce.) So, I think it's significantly misleading to suggest that he was a strictly analytic philosopher in the early years until some turn-around after becoming acquainted with American Philosophy in the middle years. While Rorty was not a Whiteheadian by any means, I have also recently co-authored an article with David Griffin explaining that Rorty's interpretation of Whitehead's critique of 'subjectivist sensationism' in the 1960s was closer to the mark than later interpretations. So, I think that it would be nice to get this paragraph on his early philosophy corrected. Can anyone else involved in this discussion verify the exposure that Rorty got to American Philosophy at Chicago? Olav Smith 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
After a day or so following the Telos report, news of his death has not travelled as far and wide as I would have expected. Any thoughts? I realize we are at the end of the news cycle but Rorty's influence on contemporary thought goes well beyond the United States and the Anglo-sphere. I noticed in the edit summary that a family member has validated his passing. Amitorit 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another source http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/in_memoriam.html
This should be a credible souce I think - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001268.html
There was a good obit/summary of his work on Australian public radio last week: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2007/1948889.htm Fmark 06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the biography section, we have the phrase "After two years in the United States Army,". That's pretty much eliding what is most likely a significant experience, especially for someone with such liberal beliefs. What did he do? (and what he thought of it?)
I've had professors who were drafted into 20C wars and not one of them got within 200 miles of battlezone. They were: a tetchy requisitions clerk; a surly mechanic; a huffy guy who kept all the D-cell batteries fully charged; a linguist immune to boredom who monitored Hungarian military radio for anything besides inter-office complaining about the weather; and a member of a "troop presence" unit in Paris that nobody ever got around to giving any tasks or responsibilities to (thus freeing up everyone's time for two years of art, drink, and sex).
Somewhere between those grand career options, and being a Men-In-Black ninja assassin, there are two years in mid-twenties of the life of a philosopher!! For anyone familiar with Dr Rorty's life story: full us in!
Sean M. Burke (
talk)
13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
you guys claim he supports hermeneutics but:
Int: Do you still believe that epistemology should be replaced by hermeneutics?
Rorty: No, I think it was an unfortunate phrase. I wish I'd never mentioned hermeneutics. The last chapter of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature isn't very good. I think I just should have said: we ought to be able to think of something more interesting to do than keep the epistemology industry going.
src: http://www.unc.edu/%7Eknobe/rorty.html (his site)
---That said, Laurelle's "non-philosophy" still plants him squarely in the realm of philosophy "proper".
Fugazilazarus (
talk)
10:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Philosource ( talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)I added the category "Social democrat" for Rorty. If anyone cares to cite it, the interview in the link posted below, in which he says he shares, "...Habermas vision of a social democratic utopia...", would do the job.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_postel0607
Please rewrite the following to make it more intelligible:
He subsequently came to reject the tradition of philosophy according to which knowledge concerns correctly representing a world whose existence remains wholly independent of those representations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.60.200 ( talk) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Rorty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
"The most common criticism is that Rorty's work is self-refuting (see Nagel and Nozick for instance)"
It would be really helpful if this article explained the criticism, rather than just mentioning it. In what way is Rorty's work alleged to be self refuting? I have deleted the relevant section until it is explained. ElectricRay 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Rorty was absolutely shredded to pieces by Bernard Williams. Can somebody substantiate this? Seadowns ( talk) 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article says Rorty's first child, James (Jay) was born in 1954. The OAC, Online Archive of California, states under the collection title Rorty (Richard) Papers that James/Jay was born in 1961. It's hard to believe that a male would bother to lie about his age, but this is something that should probably be checked out and, if necessary, corrected. After all, Richard Rorty has said that he suffered from OCD. He would want every detail of his article to be correct. Younggoldchip ( talk) 16:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The Philosophical Lexicon comment at the beginning of the article was removed as NPOV, though I think it is very deftly placed and perfectly NPOV: it summarizes Rorty in a way that is not offensive yet clever, and it gives some acknowledgement to the point of view of the clever/humorous, not to be totally upstaged by the somber/dry POV normally part of the gut reaction when creating academic biographies. In fact, I think it's a very good example of NPOV balance: this is the only place in the article as it is now where humor is really relevant, and it does its job well! — Tarnas 06:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm looking in on behalf of the Cleanup Taskforce. The article seems to me to be fairly clearly written with proper grammar and the rest. The only comment I would have is a lack of references. Is there anything else that needs to be done here? Kerowyn 23:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Rorty's major work is the Mirror of Nature (or something like that). I read a chapter from, but was not sure exactly how to situate it with respect to ascribing it some sort of philosophical position. The short paragraph in this article about the book greatly helped me figure out, to some extent, a starting place for figuring out Rorty's position. However, the paragraph in this article is short, stubby, and needs to be expanded upon. Rorty is an important (albeit heavily criticized) philosopher. It would be doing him justice to expand upon the section on his major works, fully explicating his philosophical positions and assertions. Kevin L. 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been re-assigned this task and I found these external links to non-English sites. I have removed these for the moment and unless there is a specific reason for it to go back in, it will not reside in the original content.
Nivus| (talk)| (desk) 10:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone erased, and I believe for no good reason, the link I had put to a critique of Rorty. Since this seems to be sincerely lacking here, I'm putting it right back. 201.50.127.26 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Again it happened. Losers; they are everywhere. 201.8.5.123 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I will keep adding the link, like you or not, until one as good or better than it is found. Rorty is a controversial man with very controversial ideas; people such as me, who do not agree with them, are entitled to have their views expressed somewhat here, or, at least, to show the dissenting view to one another. That's why I shared that adress, and will continue to do so. It personally pleases me very much that I can annoy people who are able to admire that subliterate swindler, but this is getting tiresome. 200.222.192.129 14:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
The article originally said that Rorty was endeavoring to describe a society singularly opposed to suffering, when in actuality, no such language appears in his work. Rather, the term 'cruelty' is used. There's a fundamental difference between suffering and cruelty. One is an imposition to produce suffering, the other is a response to imposition, deliberate or not. The latter can lead to social progress when it is made into "statements of autonomy," or "private self-image" as Rorty would later rephrase it to me. As specious as the difference seems, it exists, and I think it would be a misattribution to keep 'suffering' instead of 'cruelty' in the article.
As to to the issue of eliminating suffering, the issue to which I originally responded, you are incorrect. I never said that Rorty didn't write on suffering. I said he wasn't describing a society singularly opposed to suffering. It is precisely the role of suffering you described--the response in others that prompts them to reduce cruelty--that can bring about social progress. It would also be contradictory should Rorty say we need endeavor to eliminate suffering when suffering is the very thing emphasized in works (Nabakov, Dickens, etc.) that tends to bring about social hope and progress, something partially defined by a reduction of cruelty. Suffering, however, is not insoluble with cruelty. Suffering itself can be incurred by recognizing cruelty; thus, a fundamental difference is clear. -- Kallath 02:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote most of this page under a former avatar, and I am happy to see how it has improved. Unfortunately, the criticism section is weasel-word central. Who are these 'some' who see things? I will try and work on this over the next few days. ParvatiBai 02:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't find this section very helpful - the explanation of the criticisms from the "left" and the "right" are so generally stated as to be meaningless, and the cross referencing to Nagel and Nozick doesn't help, as neither of those articles mentions the criticisms they have made of Rorty. Could someone perhaps expand on the criticisms, or provide references as to where they could be found, so I can do it? ElectricRay 09:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
PS Lang is not a right-winger. This artcile is silly to suggest that those who charge Rorty with relativism and incoherence are all right-wingers. I'm a socialist, by god, and I reject both Rorty and relativism!!-- Lacatosias 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-- For one of the most important philosophers of our day, the Rorty entry is pretty skimpy. Any ideas on where to go from here, to beef it up and give a sense of why Rorty's work is so significant?
Obviously Frege.-- Lacatosias 14:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Much is missing from this page indeed, and much needs to be fleshed out. We are dealing with a major figure here. I think the NPOV has been well applied, and we should welcome a more robust criticism section as we expand the discussion of Rorty's work. I do contest the claim that Rorty's writing is not considered to be clear, since 'most' philosophers (who are they? let's not use weasel words) are not the only readers of texts. Rorty is incredibly popular outside the academy, for the very reason that his prose is clear, even if his ideas are not always so. Cheers. ParvatiBai 20:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Discussions between colleagues (not to mention pulling rank) would fall under the category of WP:OR, not encyclopedic material. There are also professional philosophers who think that Rorty is a rigorous thinker on his own terms. That is why 'most' is a weasel word and neither you, who have talked with Rorty critics, nor I, who have talked with Rorty supporters, can use that evidence to revert the article. I would also caution you that non-professional readers of philosophy can also think, just as most non-mechanics know that "carburators" [sic] do not go in the gas tank. Cheers ParvatiBai 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't have much to add, except to say that I think that ParvatiBai has it right here: the word "most" is unsubstantiated, and the defense offered by Bryan above does not hold very well. After all, everybody is entitled to be horribly wrong from time to time, even the folks at stanford, and I am having a very hard time believing that the issue here is that "clarity" needs more explanation. Keep up the good work. - Sam 21:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I've started/written a page on Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (and Ironism, and Final vocabulary). I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and so perhaps the organization could be made more mainstream. I'd appreciate the help, if anyone here has read the book.-- Heyitspeter 00:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, I edited the page so that Pragmatist has a capital P because it refers to a specific school of philosophy, namely Pragmatism. -- Damnedkingdom
I have a bad feeling about RR being classified as an "analytical philosopher". For starters, he'd most certainly hate the distinction between continental and analytic philosophy. Secondly, he argues against many theoretical pillars of latter day hard-core analytic philosophy (think representation). I know he's trained in The Analytic Way(tm), but IMO that alone does not make him part of the gang. -- Snooweatinganima
I took a course from Rorty Winter 2005, and he characterized the situation like this: he can write analytical philosophy Monday and Wednesday, and romantic/continental philosophy Tuesday and Thursday (echoing the words of William James on belief). He definitely was on the side of the romantic/continental, but delved into writing on both sides. You have to study analytical philosophy if you set out to show why we don't need it! Also, he did use the analytical v. continental dichotamy as the main structure of the course, "the place of philosophy in culture". Mlove 21:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Why are Quine and Sellars called "post-analytic?" What is "post-analytic philosophy" supposed to be (post-logical positivism?), and how were those two figures anything but paradigmatic examples of analytic philosophers?
Right, I was wondering about that too. This awful habit of creating neologisms by adding cool prefixes should stop. It can easily be said "late analytical philosophers" or "analytical philosophers who questioned some early tenets of analytical philosophy", etc. Yet, post-analytical is clearly out of place. I hope I receive answers before I plan to change it. YoungSpinoza 20:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I wrote a phlosophy stub on 'postanalytic philosophy' several months ago. I feel the use of the term to describe Quine is quite appropriate--Sellars, less so. However, it is nonetheless a commonly used term to describe those who write along an analytic vein but who believe also in writing on issues that bear a social valence. Rorty, I think, is the quintessential postanalytic philosopher in this sense. Not all 'postanalytic thinkers,' however, must disavow analytic philosophy such as Rorty has. It's simply a loosely used term to describe such detachments and to deter the use of the term 'postmodern' for the same sorts of ascriptions. -- Kallath 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Rorty's master's thesis, which prepared the way for his doctoral dissertation, was on Whitehead. It was called “Whitehead's Use of the Concept of Potentiality.” (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1952). His work at Chicago was NOT strictly analytic, as Whitehead and Dewey had pronounced influences on the school. Through Hartshorne and others, I'd be surprised if he wouldn't have had significant introductions into American Philosophy. (Not everyone seems to be aware that Whitehead is a significant contributor to American Philosophy, with many parallels to Peirce.) So, I think it's significantly misleading to suggest that he was a strictly analytic philosopher in the early years until some turn-around after becoming acquainted with American Philosophy in the middle years. While Rorty was not a Whiteheadian by any means, I have also recently co-authored an article with David Griffin explaining that Rorty's interpretation of Whitehead's critique of 'subjectivist sensationism' in the 1960s was closer to the mark than later interpretations. So, I think that it would be nice to get this paragraph on his early philosophy corrected. Can anyone else involved in this discussion verify the exposure that Rorty got to American Philosophy at Chicago? Olav Smith 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
After a day or so following the Telos report, news of his death has not travelled as far and wide as I would have expected. Any thoughts? I realize we are at the end of the news cycle but Rorty's influence on contemporary thought goes well beyond the United States and the Anglo-sphere. I noticed in the edit summary that a family member has validated his passing. Amitorit 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's another source http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2007/06/in_memoriam.html
This should be a credible souce I think - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061001268.html
There was a good obit/summary of his work on Australian public radio last week: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2007/1948889.htm Fmark 06:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the biography section, we have the phrase "After two years in the United States Army,". That's pretty much eliding what is most likely a significant experience, especially for someone with such liberal beliefs. What did he do? (and what he thought of it?)
I've had professors who were drafted into 20C wars and not one of them got within 200 miles of battlezone. They were: a tetchy requisitions clerk; a surly mechanic; a huffy guy who kept all the D-cell batteries fully charged; a linguist immune to boredom who monitored Hungarian military radio for anything besides inter-office complaining about the weather; and a member of a "troop presence" unit in Paris that nobody ever got around to giving any tasks or responsibilities to (thus freeing up everyone's time for two years of art, drink, and sex).
Somewhere between those grand career options, and being a Men-In-Black ninja assassin, there are two years in mid-twenties of the life of a philosopher!! For anyone familiar with Dr Rorty's life story: full us in!
Sean M. Burke (
talk)
13:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
you guys claim he supports hermeneutics but:
Int: Do you still believe that epistemology should be replaced by hermeneutics?
Rorty: No, I think it was an unfortunate phrase. I wish I'd never mentioned hermeneutics. The last chapter of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature isn't very good. I think I just should have said: we ought to be able to think of something more interesting to do than keep the epistemology industry going.
src: http://www.unc.edu/%7Eknobe/rorty.html (his site)
---That said, Laurelle's "non-philosophy" still plants him squarely in the realm of philosophy "proper".
Fugazilazarus (
talk)
10:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Philosource ( talk) 00:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)I added the category "Social democrat" for Rorty. If anyone cares to cite it, the interview in the link posted below, in which he says he shares, "...Habermas vision of a social democratic utopia...", would do the job.
http://www.progressive.org/mag_postel0607
Please rewrite the following to make it more intelligible:
He subsequently came to reject the tradition of philosophy according to which knowledge concerns correctly representing a world whose existence remains wholly independent of those representations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.60.200 ( talk) 04:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Richard Rorty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
"The most common criticism is that Rorty's work is self-refuting (see Nagel and Nozick for instance)"
It would be really helpful if this article explained the criticism, rather than just mentioning it. In what way is Rorty's work alleged to be self refuting? I have deleted the relevant section until it is explained. ElectricRay 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Rorty was absolutely shredded to pieces by Bernard Williams. Can somebody substantiate this? Seadowns ( talk) 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The article says Rorty's first child, James (Jay) was born in 1954. The OAC, Online Archive of California, states under the collection title Rorty (Richard) Papers that James/Jay was born in 1961. It's hard to believe that a male would bother to lie about his age, but this is something that should probably be checked out and, if necessary, corrected. After all, Richard Rorty has said that he suffered from OCD. He would want every detail of his article to be correct. Younggoldchip ( talk) 16:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)