Saturday, November 15, 2008

Bourgeois Inquiry

Thanks to Andrew for pointing this out. Here's Richard Rorty on the ends of inquiry:

Labels: , ,

posted by Fido the Yak at 8:35 AM.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pie in the sky", did he say? What is this guy, a joker? He sounds senile.

November 16, 2008 11:38 AM  
Blogger Fido the Yak said...

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.

November 16, 2008 11:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


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.

November 16, 2008 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

November 16, 2008 10:46 PM  
Blogger Andrew Louis said...

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.

November 17, 2008 7:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

November 17, 2008 1:36 PM  
Blogger Andrew Louis said...

I’d argue that the differences are merely cultural and/or linguistic.

What way would you say they’re different?

November 17, 2008 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The differences are absolute. There is no such thing as "merely cultural", or "merely linguistic." Why are you such a cynic?

November 17, 2008 7:57 PM  
Blogger Andrew Louis said...

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?

November 18, 2008 4:21 AM  
Blogger Andrew Louis said...

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.

November 18, 2008 5:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, I can't follow this, it just seems like niggling. Read my blog, if you want to know what absolutes I trade with.

November 18, 2008 10:57 AM  
Blogger Andrew Louis said...

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.

November 18, 2008 12:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Fido the Yak front page