Not only did he say "Pie in the Sky" but he meant it. And I think he is right. The search for justification or meaning in the afterworld or whatever is, well, Pie in the sky.
Anonymous It is also rather simple minded. When Rorty tries to dress it up with philosophical rhetoric, and then laugh it off as pie in the sky, he sounds sort of senile. How easy is to conduct a search in a place you have decided doesn't exist, and then announce you find nothing there? Pretty easy! Phrasing it like this were some triumph of reason is laughable.
So you think he is right? Right about what? The question is whether he is deluded. What he has to say about the afterlife, which he doesn't think exists, means nothing to people who in fact find meaning in such a notion. In this "whatever it is"--as you so mockingly put it.
lloyd, I don't think the neo-pragmatist stance (and Rorty's) is to say that it [god] doesn't exist, but that the pragmatist doesn't know what it means to say that, and further (as a result) it isn't usefull in any way in todays world to speak in such ways.
By "pie in the sky", he's simply refering to universals; call those what you like; God, Allah, the Tao, pie in the sky, so on.
Thanks for the explanation, Andrew, but to me these "universals" you list are all very different. They certainly are not just different names for the same stupidity.
Let me put that in another way: rather than saying that the differences are absolute, what are the differences? And how do those difference extend beyond words and culture?
Right now it seems that we have: A.) All absolutes are different B.) X and Z are absolutes C.) Therefore X and Z are different
But what support is there for "A"? Not only that, but we'd also need a supporting argument for absolutes.
12 Comments:
"Pie in the sky", did he say? What is this guy, a joker? He sounds senile.
You know, I too am interested in the context of the letter to Josipovici, and also a citation to a published textual source if you can provide it.
Lloyd,
Not only did he say "Pie in the Sky" but he meant it. And I think he is right. The search for justification or meaning in the afterworld or whatever is, well, Pie in the sky.
Anonymous
It is also rather simple minded. When Rorty tries to dress it up with philosophical rhetoric, and then laugh it off as pie in the sky, he sounds sort of senile. How easy is to conduct a search in a place you have decided doesn't exist, and then announce you find nothing there? Pretty easy! Phrasing it like this were some triumph of reason is laughable.
So you think he is right? Right about what? The question is whether he is deluded. What he has to say about the afterlife, which he doesn't think exists, means nothing to people who in fact find meaning in such a notion. In this "whatever it is"--as you so mockingly put it.
lloyd,
I don't think the neo-pragmatist stance (and Rorty's) is to say that it [god] doesn't exist, but that the pragmatist doesn't know what it means to say that, and further (as a result) it isn't usefull in any way in todays world to speak in such ways.
By "pie in the sky", he's simply refering to universals; call those what you like; God, Allah, the Tao, pie in the sky, so on.
Thanks for the explanation, Andrew, but to me these "universals" you list are all very different. They certainly are not just different names for the same stupidity.
I’d argue that the differences are merely cultural and/or linguistic.
What way would you say they’re different?
The differences are absolute. There is no such thing as "merely cultural", or "merely linguistic." Why are you such a cynic?
So the difference between God and Allah is absolute?
In what way?
-----
Both ARE absolute, in terms of idea.
Why are you such a skeptic?
Let me put that in another way:
rather than saying that the differences are absolute, what are the differences? And how do those difference extend beyond words and culture?
Right now it seems that we have:
A.) All absolutes are different
B.) X and Z are absolutes
C.) Therefore X and Z are different
But what support is there for "A"? Not only that, but we'd also need a supporting argument for absolutes.
Sorry, I can't follow this, it just seems like niggling. Read my blog, if you want to know what absolutes I trade with.
lloyd,
I guess I was simply throwing you the ball. You are making a claim, so I'm prying for the supporting argument for that claim.
Which would be, A.) How are the ideas of God and Allah different? What makes them different? B.) A proof of absolutes.
Do you have a link to your blog regarding absolutes? I would be interested in that.
Post a Comment
Fido the Yak front page