Sign in

Rorty QOTD

@rortyquotes.bsky.social
61 followers 1 following 372 posts

Richard McKay Rorty (October 4, 1931 – June 8, 2007): pragmatist, ironist, and panrelationalist.

PostsRepliesMedia
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 13h
Only those with a taste for philosophy ask whether real Rolexes are REALLY real. Only philosophers take seriously Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A. Phil as Poetry p.1 #Pragmatism #Rorty #RealityVsAppearance
Common sense distinguishes between the apparent color of a thing and its real color, between the apparent motions of heavenly bodies and their real motions, between nondairy creamer and real cream, and between imitation Rolexes and real ones. But only those with a taste for philosophy ask whether real Rolexes are REALLY real. Only philosophers take seriously Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A. That distinction has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. We should do our best to get rid of it.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Any greater plausibility / intelligibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed. PasAA p.221 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Intelligibility
21. Another way of putting this point is to say that intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either. By way of contrast, consider McDowell’s claim that “the sheer intelligibility of the idea [of openness to facts] is enough” for his purposes (of finding a middle way between bald naturalism and the renunciation of empiricism) (McDowell, Mind and World, 113). He thinks that the idea of our being open to facts has an advantage in “intelligibility” over that of “the fact itself impressing itself on a perceiver.” But any greater plausibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either. PasAA p.221 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Intelligibility
21. Another way of putting this point is to say that intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either. By way of contrast, consider McDowell’s claim that “the sheer intelligibility of the idea [of openness to facts] is enough” for his purposes (of finding a middle way between bald naturalism and the renunciation of empiricism) (McDowell, Mind and World, 113). He thinks that the idea of our being open to facts has an advantage in “intelligibility” over that of “the fact itself impressing itself on a perceiver.” But any greater plausibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed.
000
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
Philosophers’ problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte. PasAA p.184 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Intelligibility
Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 04/10/2026
Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. PasAA p.184 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Intelligibility
Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
022
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 03/10/2026
Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. PasAA p.184 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Intelligibility
Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 02/10/2026
Quine thinks particle physics gives us one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks we have two. I think we’d do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether. We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. PasAA p.184 #Pragmatism #Intelligibility
Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 01/10/2026
Paradox is sometimes a small price to pay for progress, as the examples of Copernicus, Kant, and Freud may suggest. PasAA p.175 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Paradox
Paradox, however, is sometimes a small price to pay for progress, as the examples of Copernicus, Kant, and Freud may suggest. Further, it is a price Brandom himself is willing to pay, at least in the eyes of Searle, Nagel, and others, when he follows Sellars in casting sentience to the winds and denying that dogs and babies have beliefs “except in a derivative sense.” I am not sure that the paradox of which Heidegger and I are guilty is all that much more paradoxical than the one which many people think Sellars and Brandom are guilty of when they assert that all awareness is a linguistic affair.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 30/09/2026
I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected. Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
022
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 28/09/2026
Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
111
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 27/09/2026
Philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
041
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 26/09/2026
Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
031
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 25/09/2026
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Rorty & His Critics p.150 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Interpretation
Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 24/09/2026
Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be. Rorty & His Critics p.148 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Philosophy
What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
013
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 23/09/2026
Philosophy, poetry, and science are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points–so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Rorty & His Critics p.148 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Philosophy
What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 22/09/2026
Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. Rorty & His Critics p.148 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Philosophy
What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
031
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 21/09/2026
A culture in which the science-poetry distinction is explained by different sorts of human needs would be a great big cultural change–as big as the one that was brought about by the secularization of morality & of social institutions–but is worth a try. Rorty & His Critics p.151 #Experimentalism
I would suggest that these issues can only be resolved, as Dewey would say, experimentally. That is, we can only resolve them by trying to create a culture in which the science-poetry distinction is not explicated in terms of the distinction between reality and fantasy, between "the world" and "us," but rather–as I suggested above–in terms of the distinction between different sorts of human needs. This would be a great big cultural change–as big as the one that was brought about by the secularization of morality and of social institutions–but is worth a try. Perhaps my conviction that this experiment would succeed is due to being an American who has read too much Emerson, Whitman, James, and Dewey–just as Bouveresse admits that his conviction that such an experiment is bound to fail may be the result of certain particular aspects of the French situation and of his personal history. But, however this may be, there is no substitute for trying the experiment and observing the result.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 20/09/2026
We can only resolve some issues by trying to create a culture in which the science-poetry distinction is not explicated in terms of the distinction between reality & fantasy, but in terms of the distinction between different sorts of human needs. Rorty & His Critics p.151 #Rorty #Experimentalism
I would suggest that these issues can only be resolved, as Dewey would say, experimentally. That is, we can only resolve them by trying to create a culture in which the science-poetry distinction is not explicated in terms of the distinction between reality and fantasy, between "the world" and "us," but rather–as I suggested above–in terms of the distinction between different sorts of human needs. This would be a great big cultural change–as big as the one that was brought about by the secularization of morality and of social institutions–but is worth a try. Perhaps my conviction that this experiment would succeed is due to being an American who has read too much Emerson, Whitman, James, and Dewey–just as Bouveresse admits that his conviction that such an experiment is bound to fail may be the result of certain particular aspects of the French situation and of his personal history. But, however this may be, there is no substitute for trying the experiment and observing the result.
031
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 19/09/2026
One of the few things Thomas Nagel and I agree about is that argument is over-rated in philosophy and that the central issues on which he and I disagree–whether experience goes beyond language–are pretty well unarguable. Rorty & His Critics p.151 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Experimentalism
How are Bouveresse and I to resolve these issues? By applying the powerful methods of analytic philosophy? What methods? Our disagreements about these matters can as easily be phrased in the jargon of analytic philosophy of science and philosophy of language as in any other. Restatement in a given jargon does not insure the availability of a method for resolving disagreement. (One of the few things Thomas Nagel and I agree about, for example, is that argument is over-rated in philosophy and, in particular, that the central issues on which he and I disagree - whether experience goes beyond language, and whether reality may not extend beyond the reach of any possible human language - are pretty well unarguable.)
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 18/09/2026
The voice of the past must always be heeded. But intellectual & moral progress would be impossible unless people can sometimes, in exceptional cases, be persuaded to turn a deaf ear to that voice. PasAA p.175 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Philosophy
David Lewis once said that philosophy is a matter of collating our intuitions and then finding a way to keep as many of them as possible. I think that it is a matter of treating both intuitions and accusations of paradox as the voice of the past, and as possible impediments to the creation of a better future. Of course the voice of the past must always be heeded, since rhetorical effectiveness depends upon a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. But intellectual and moral progress would be impossible unless people can sometimes, in exceptional cases, be persuaded to turn a deaf ear to that voice.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
I think that philosophy is a matter of treating both intuitions and accusations of paradox as the voice of the past, and as possible impediments to the creation of a better future. PasAA p.175 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Paradox
David Lewis once said that philosophy is a matter of collating our intuitions and then finding a way to keep as many of them as possible. I think that it is a matter of treating both intuitions and accusations of paradox as the voice of the past, and as possible impediments to the creation of a better future. Of course the voice of the past must always be heeded, since rhetorical effectiveness depends upon a decent respect for the opinions of mankind. But intellectual and moral progress would be impossible unless people can sometimes, in exceptional cases, be persuaded to turn a deaf ear to that voice.
041
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 16/09/2026
I see Brandom’s persistence in using the terms “getting right,” “really is” and “making true” as tools which will fall into authoritarian hands and be used for reactionary purposes. PasAA p.173 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Brandom
The choice is between dropping the notions of “answering” and “representing” (though not those of “of” and “about”) and keeping them. My argument for dropping them is that they preserve an image of the relation between people and non-people which, in these lectures, I have been calling “authoritarian” and denouncing. I see both Brandom’s identification of calling an assertion “true” with endorsing it and Davidson’s refusal to define “true” as tools for persuading us to abandon this authoritarian image. But I see Brandom’s persistence in using the terms “getting right,” “really is” and “making true” as tools which will fall into authoritarian hands and be used for reactionary purposes.
032
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 15/09/2026
My argument for dropping the notions of “answering” and “representing” is that they preserve an image of the relation between people and non-people which, in these lectures, I have been calling “authoritarian” and denouncing. PasAA p.173 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Answering
The choice is between dropping the notions of “answering” and “representing” (though not those of “of” and “about”) and keeping them. My argument for dropping them is that they preserve an image of the relation between people and non-people which, in these lectures, I have been calling “authoritarian” and denouncing. I see both Brandom’s identification of calling an assertion “true” with endorsing it and Davidson’s refusal to define “true” as tools for persuading us to abandon this authoritarian image. But I see Brandom’s persistence in using the terms “getting right,” “really is” and “making true” as tools which will fall into authoritarian hands and be used for reactionary purposes.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 14/09/2026
One should just stop answering altogether, thus avoiding the choice between answering to people and answering to nonpeople. PasAA p.173 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Answering
One way of putting the issue is to revert to the words I put in Davidson’s mouth earlier, and to say that one should just stop answering altogether, thus avoiding the choice between answering to people and answering to nonpeople. As long as the latter choice is posed, one will count as a defender of objectivity merely by virtue of denying, as Brandom does, that truth can be identified with what people believe under certain conditions. But when Brandom then goes on to say that he identifies truth with answering to nonpeople, realists like Searle will ask him how he knows that he is giving the right answers.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 13/09/2026
I see the pragmatist tradition not just as clearing up little messes left behind by the great dead philosophers, but as taking part in a world-historical change in the self-image of European and American civilization. PasAA p.170 #Pragmatism #Rorty
When I first read Brandom’s book, it seemed to me that Brandom was abandoning hard-won ground by making the notions of “representation,” “fact,” and “making true” respectable. This was because I had gotten accustomed to Davidson’s repudiation of all these notions. I no longer am sure about this, and now I am inclined to say that Brandom and Davidson pretty much agree on all the issues, and are simply employing different rhetorical strategies to make pretty much the same points. But rhetoric matters, especially if, as I do, one sees the pragmatist tradition not just as clearing up little messes left behind by the great dead philosophers, but as taking part in a world-historical change in the self-image of European and American civilization.
022
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 12/09/2026
When I heard the news about the Twin Towers my first thought was “Oh, God. Bush will use this the way Hitler used the Reichstag fire.” Last Words from Richard Rorty progressive.org/magazine/las... #Pragmatism #Rorty #Terrorism
I’m not aware of having moved to the left, and am curious as to why I might seem to have done so. When I heard the news about the Twin Towers my first thought was “Oh, God. Bush will use this the way Hitler used the Reichstag fire.” I have never thought of the Republicans at any time since Reagan’s election as more than greedy, unscrupulous scoundrels. In regard to the “war on terror” I have described the same trajectory as a lot of other leftists: in favor of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and against invading Iraq. On “cultural” matters, there was a time when I had old-fogeyish doubts about gay and lesbian marriage that I no longer have. But that doesn’t seem much of shift. In regard to domestic policy, I am still in favor of soaking the rich and redistributing the money to the workers (though not of nationalizing the means of production).
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 11/09/2026
Sooner or later some terrorist group will repeat 9/11 on a much grander scale. I doubt that democratic institutions will be resilient enough to stand the strain. Last Words from Richard Rorty progressive.org/magazine/las... #Pragmatism #Rorty #Terrorism
The Bush administration has now been repudiated by US public opinion, and the Iraq debacle will make future European governments hesitant about following America’s lead. But I still think that the end of democracy is a likely consequence of nuclear terrorism, and I do not know how to guard against this danger. Sooner or later some terrorist group will repeat 9/11 on a much grander scale. I doubt that democratic institutions will be resilient enough to stand the strain.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
In the eyes of both Brandom and McDowell, l am a sort of aging enfant terrible, making the appropriation of Sellars and Davidson unnecessarily difficult by recasting the views of each in unnecessarily counterintuitive ways. PasAA p.168 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Brandom
Brandom is, in this respect, to Davidson as McDowell is to Sellars. Each thinks that a distinguished precursor was unfortunately tempted to throw the baby out with the bath. Brandom wants to recuperate “representation” and McDowell wants to recuperate “perceptual experience.” It is natural, therefore, that both Brandom and McDowell have doubts about my own version of pragmatism—a version which delights in throwing out as much of the philosophical tradition as possible, and urges that philosophers perform their social function only when they change intuitions, as opposed to reconciling them. In the eyes of both Brandom and McDowell, l am a sort of aging enfant terrible, making the appropriation of Sellars and Davidson unnecessarily difficult by recasting the views of each in unnecessarily counterintuitive ways.
111
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
My own version of pragmatism delights in throwing out as much of the philosophical tradition as possible, and urges that philosophers perform their social function only when they change intuitions, as opposed to reconciling them. PasAA p.168 #Pragmatism #Rorty
Brandom is, in this respect, to Davidson as McDowell is to Sellars. Each thinks that a distinguished precursor was unfortunately tempted to throw the baby out with the bath. Brandom wants to recuperate “representation” and McDowell wants to recuperate “perceptual experience.” It is natural, therefore, that both Brandom and McDowell have doubts about my own version of pragmatism—a version which delights in throwing out as much of the philosophical tradition as possible, and urges that philosophers perform their social function only when they change intuitions, as opposed to reconciling them. In the eyes of both Brandom and McDowell, l am a sort of aging enfant terrible, making the appropriation of Sellars and Davidson unnecessarily difficult by recasting the views of each in unnecessarily counterintuitive ways.
013
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 08/09/2026
To say that philosophy’s task is to make human practices explicit rather than to legitimize them by reference to something beyond them is to say that there is no authority beyond utility for these purposes to which we can appeal. PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Brandom
Brandom puts this point by saying that philosophy’s job is to make our practices, linguistic and other, explicit, rather than to judge these practices in the light of norms which lie outside them. He takes Wittgenstein’s infinite-regress argument against the possibility of appealing to such outside norms as fundamental to his metaphilosophical position. “Pragmatic theories of norms are distinguished from platonist theories, in treating as fundamental norms implicit in practices rather than norms explicit in principles.” There is no way for human beings to get beyond their own practices except by dreaming up better practices, and no way to judge these new practices better except by reference to their various advantages for various human purposes. To say that philosophy’s task is to make human practices explicit rather than to legitimize them by reference to something beyond them is to say that there is no authority beyond utility for these purposes to which we can appeal.
031
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 07/09/2026
There is no way for human beings to get beyond their own practices except by dreaming up better practices, and no way to judge these new practices better except by reference to their various advantages for various human purposes. PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Brandom
Brandom puts this point by saying that philosophy’s job is to make our practices, linguistic and other, explicit, rather than to judge these practices in the light of norms which lie outside them. He takes Wittgenstein’s infinite-regress argument against the possibility of appealing to such outside norms as fundamental to his metaphilosophical position. “Pragmatic theories of norms are distinguished from platonist theories, in treating as fundamental norms implicit in practices rather than norms explicit in principles.” There is no way for human beings to get beyond their own practices except by dreaming up better practices, and no way to judge these new practices better except by reference to their various advantages for various human purposes. To say that philosophy’s task is to make human practices explicit rather than to legitimize them by reference to something beyond them is to say that there is no authority beyond utility for these purposes to which we can appeal.
032
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 06/09/2026
Philosophy’s job is to make our practices, linguistic and other, explicit, rather than to judge these practices in the light of norms which lie outside them. PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Brandom
Brandom puts this point by saying that philosophy’s job is to make our practices, linguistic and other, explicit, rather than to judge these practices in the light of norms which lie outside them. He takes Wittgenstein’s infinite-regress argument against the possibility of appealing to such outside norms as fundamental to his metaphilosophical position. “Pragmatic theories of norms are distinguished from platonist theories, in treating as fundamental norms implicit in practices rather than norms explicit in principles.” There is no way for human beings to get beyond their own practices except by dreaming up better practices, and no way to judge these new practices better except by reference to their various advantages for various human purposes. To say that philosophy’s task is to make human practices explicit rather than to legitimize them by reference to something beyond them is to say that there is no authority beyond utility for these purposes to which we can appeal.
000
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 05/09/2026
There is no authority outside of convenience for human purposes which can be appealed to in order to legitimize the use of a vocabulary. We have no duties to anything non-human. PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Vocabulary
Philosophy cannot answer the question: Is our vocabulary in accord with the way the world is? It can only answer the question: Can we perspicuously relate the various vocabularies we use to one another, and thereby dissolve the philosophical problems which seem to arise at the places where we switch over from one vocabulary into another?

I read Sellars and Brandom as pragmatists, because I treat psychological nominalism as a version of the pragmatist doctrine that truth is a matter of the utility of a belief rather than of a relation between pieces of the world and pieces of language. … There is no authority outside of convenience for human purposes which can be appealed to in order to legitimize the use of a vocabulary. We have no duties to anything non-human.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 04/09/2026
I read Sellars and Brandom as pragmatists, because I treat psychological nominalism as a version of the pragmatist doctrine that truth is a matter of the utility of a belief rather than of a relation between pieces of the world and pieces of language. PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Vocabulary
Philosophy cannot answer the question: Is our vocabulary in accord with the way the world is? It can only answer the question: Can we perspicuously relate the various vocabularies we use to one another, and thereby dissolve the philosophical problems which seem to arise at the places where we switch over from one vocabulary into another?

I read Sellars and Brandom as pragmatists, because I treat psychological nominalism as a version of the pragmatist doctrine that truth is a matter of the utility of a belief rather than of a relation between pieces of the world and pieces of language. … There is no authority outside of convenience for human purposes which can be appealed to in order to legitimize the use of a vocabulary. We have no duties to anything non-human.
043
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 03/09/2026
Philosophy can only answer the question: Can we perspicuously relate the various vocabularies we use to one another, and thereby dissolve the philosophical problems which seem to arise at the places where we switch over from one vocabulary into another? PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Vocabulary
Philosophy cannot answer the question: Is our vocabulary in accord with the way the world is? It can only answer the question: Can we perspicuously relate the various vocabularies we use to one another, and thereby dissolve the philosophical problems which seem to arise at the places where we switch over from one vocabulary into another?

I read Sellars and Brandom as pragmatists, because I treat psychological nominalism as a version of the pragmatist doctrine that truth is a matter of the utility of a belief rather than of a relation between pieces of the world and pieces of language. … There is no authority outside of convenience for human purposes which can be appealed to in order to legitimize the use of a vocabulary. We have no duties to anything non-human.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
Philosophy cannot answer the question: Is our vocabulary in accord with the way the world is? PasAA p.165 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Vocabulary
Philosophy cannot answer the question: Is our vocabulary in accord with the way the world is? It can only answer the question: Can we perspicuously relate the various vocabularies we use to one another, and thereby dissolve the philosophical problems which seem to arise at the places where we switch over from one vocabulary into another?

I read Sellars and Brandom as pragmatists, because I treat psychological nominalism as a version of the pragmatist doctrine that truth is a matter of the utility of a belief rather than of a relation between pieces of the world and pieces of language. … There is no authority outside of convenience for human purposes which can be appealed to in order to legitimize the use of a vocabulary. We have no duties to anything non-human.
032
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 01/09/2026
If we had all been raised from our cradles to be antiessentialists, "interpretation" would never have been inscribed on the banners of a philosophical movement. Dilthey, Gadamer & Charles Taylor would have had to find different topics. ORT p.102 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Recontextualization
Suppose we are antiessentialist all the way. Then we shall say that all inquiry is interpretation, that all thought consists in recontextualization, that we have never time anything else and never will. We shall not grant that there is a useful contrast to be drawn between topics about which there is objective truth and topics about which there is not. We shall not grant that there is any area of culture in which the essentialist has a point. So, if we use it at all, we shall have to stretch the term "interpretation" to cover what stockbrokers, geologists, actuaries, and carpenters do. A notion stretched that thin, deprived of contrastive and polemical force, loses its pizzazz. If we had all been raised from our cradles to be antiessetialists, "interpretation" would never have been inscribed on the banners of a philosophical movement. Dilthey, Gadamer, and Charles Taylor would have had to find different topics.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
We shall not grant that there is any area of culture in which the essentialist has a point. So, if we use it at all, we shall have to stretch the term "interpretation" to cover what stockbrokers, geologists, actuaries, and carpenters do. ORT p.102 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Recontextualization
Suppose we are antiessentialist all the way. Then we shall say that all inquiry is interpretation, that all thought consists in recontextualization, that we have never time anything else and never will. We shall not grant that there is a useful contrast to be drawn between topics about which there is objective truth and topics about which there is not. We shall not grant that there is any area of culture in which the essentialist has a point. So, if we use it at all, we shall have to stretch the term "interpretation" to cover what stockbrokers, geologists, actuaries, and carpenters do. A notion stretched that thin, deprived of contrastive and polemical force, loses its pizzazz. If we had all been raised from our cradles to be antiessetialists, "interpretation" would never have been inscribed on the banners of a philosophical movement. Dilthey, Gadamer, and Charles Taylor would have had to find different topics.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 30/08/2026
Suppose we are antiessentialist all the way. Then we shall say that all inquiry is interpretation, that all thought consists in recontextualization, that we have never time anything else and never will. ORT p.102 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Recontextualization
Suppose we are antiessentialist all the way. Then we shall say that all inquiry is interpretation, that all thought consists in recontextualization, that we have never time anything else and never will. We shall not grant that there is a useful contrast to be drawn between topics about which there is objective truth and topics about which there is not. We shall not grant that there is any area of culture in which the essentialist has a point. So, if we use it at all, we shall have to stretch the term "interpretation" to cover what stockbrokers, geologists, actuaries, and carpenters do. A notion stretched that thin, deprived of contrastive and polemical force, loses its pizzazz. If we had all been raised from our cradles to be antiessetialists, "interpretation" would never have been inscribed on the banners of a philosophical movement. Dilthey, Gadamer, and Charles Taylor would have had to find different topics.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 29/08/2026
Many analytic philosophers dislike the idea that philosophy is one of the humanities, and insist that it is one of the sciences. PCP p.181 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
The idea that Russell and his followers put our discipline on the secure path of a science is very dear to many analytic philosophers. One of the reasons they resist holism is the fear that if they walk away from the natural scientists in the direction of the historians they will open the gates to obscurantism. Many analytic philosophers dislike the idea that philosophy is one of the humanities, and insist that it is one of the sciences.
033
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 28/08/2026
One of the reasons analytic philosophers resist holism is the fear that if they walk away from the natural scientists in the direction of the historians they will open the gates to obscurantism. PCP p.181 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
The idea that Russell and his followers put our discipline on the secure path of a science is very dear to many analytic philosophers. One of the reasons they resist holism is the fear that if they walk away from the natural scientists in the direction of the historians they will open the gates to obscurantism. Many analytic philosophers dislike the idea that philosophy is one of the humanities, and insist that it is one of the sciences.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 27/08/2026
The idea that Russell and his followers put our discipline on the secure path of a science is very dear to many analytic philosophers. PCP p.181 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
The idea that Russell and his followers put our discipline on the secure path of a science is very dear to many analytic philosophers. One of the reasons they resist holism is the fear that if they walk away from the natural scientists in the direction of the historians they will open the gates to obscurantism. Many analytic philosophers dislike the idea that philosophy is one of the humanities, and insist that it is one of the sciences.
010
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 26/08/2026
Philosophers’ claims to have achieved “conceptual clarity” look, from a Wittgensteinian point of view, like disingenuous ways of going about the transformation of culture, rather than ways of making clearer what has previously been going on. PCP p.181 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
But if, as Wittgenstein suggested, a concept is just the use of a word, and if the proper use of the words that interest philosophers is always going to be a matter of controversy, it is not clear that “analysis” is an apposite term for what philosophers do. For a philosopher’s claim to have discovered the contours of a concept can never be more than a suggestion about how a word should be used. Philosophers’ diagnoses of “conceptual confusion,” as well as their claims to have achieved “conceptual clarity” look, from a Wittgensteinian point of view, like disingenuous ways of going about the transformation of culture, rather than ways of making clearer what has previously been going on.
032
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 25/08/2026
A philosopher’s claim to have discovered the contours of a concept can never be more than a suggestion about how a word should be used. PCP p.181 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
But if, as Wittgenstein suggested, a concept is just the use of a word, and if the proper use of the words that interest philosophers is always going to be a matter of controversy, it is not clear that “analysis” is an apposite term for what philosophers do. For a philosopher’s claim to have discovered the contours of a concept can never be more than a suggestion about how a word should be used. Philosophers’ diagnoses of “conceptual confusion,” as well as their claims to have achieved “conceptual clarity” look, from a Wittgensteinian point of view, like disingenuous ways of going about the transformation of culture, rather than ways of making clearer what has previously been going on.
011
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 24/08/2026
It is not clear that “analysis” is an apposite term for what philosophers do. For a philosopher’s claim to have discovered the contours of a concept can never be more than a suggestion about how a word should be used. PCP p.180 #Pragmatism #Rorty #AnalyticVsContinental
But if, as Wittgenstein suggested, a concept is just the use of a word, and if the proper use of the words that interest philosophers is always going to be a matter of controversy, it is not clear that “analysis” is an apposite term for what philosophers do. For a philosopher’s claim to have discovered the contours of a concept can never be more than a suggestion about how a word should be used. Philosophers’ diagnoses of “conceptual confusion,” as well as their claims to have achieved “conceptual clarity” look, from a Wittgensteinian point of view, like disingenuous ways of going about the transformation of culture, rather than ways of making clearer what has previously been going on.
002
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 23/08/2026
Understanding circuits doesn’t help us understand how the sophisticated software of the 1990s evolved out of the primitive software of the 1950s, nor how assertions replaced grunts. PCP p.179 #Pragmatism #Rorty #CultureAsSoftware
As holists see the matter, there is nothing intermediate between the neurons and the social practices for cognitive science to study. To study what makes human beings special, and so very different from the chimpanzees, is to study those practices—to study culture. We neither have nor need a bridge between the neurons and the practices, any more than we need one between hardware and software. Software is just a way of putting hardware to use, and culture is just a way of putting our physiological equipment to use. To understand how hardware works is one thing, but to understand the uses to which it is put is something quite different. Understanding electrical circuits, in the neurons or in the chips, does nothing to help us understand how the sophisticated software of the 1990s evolved out of the primitive software of the 1950s, nor how assertions replaced grunts.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 22/08/2026
To understand how hardware works is one thing, but to understand the uses to which it is put is something quite different. PCP p.179 #Pragmatism #Rorty #CultureAsSoftware
As holists see the matter, there is nothing intermediate between the neurons and the social practices for cognitive science to study. To study what makes human beings special, and so very different from the chimpanzees, is to study those practices—to study culture. We neither have nor need a bridge between the neurons and the practices, any more than we need one between hardware and software. Software is just a way of putting hardware to use, and culture is just a way of putting our physiological equipment to use. To understand how hardware works is one thing, but to understand the uses to which it is put is something quite different. Understanding electrical circuits, in the neurons or in the chips, does nothing to help us understand how the sophisticated software of the 1990s evolved out of the primitive software of the 1950s, nor how assertions replaced grunts.
021
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 21/08/2026
Software is just a way of putting hardware to use, and culture is just a way of putting our physiological equipment to use. PCP p.179 #Pragmatism #Rorty #CultureAsSoftware
As holists see the matter, there is nothing intermediate between the neurons and the social practices for cognitive science to study. To study what makes human beings special, and so very different from the chimpanzees, is to study those practices—to study culture. We neither have nor need a bridge between the neurons and the practices, any more than we need one between hardware and software. Software is just a way of putting hardware to use, and culture is just a way of putting our physiological equipment to use. To understand how hardware works is one thing, but to understand the uses to which it is put is something quite different. Understanding electrical circuits, in the neurons or in the chips, does nothing to help us understand how the sophisticated software of the 1990s evolved out of the primitive software of the 1950s, nor how assertions replaced grunts.
001
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 20/08/2026
We neither have nor need a bridge between the neurons and the culture, any more than we need one between hardware and software. PCP p.179 #Pragmatism #Rorty #CultureAsSoftware
As holists see the matter, there is nothing intermediate between the neurons and the social practices for cognitive science to study. To study what makes human beings special, and so very different from the chimpanzees, is to study those practices—to study culture. We neither have nor need a bridge between the neurons and the practices, any more than we need one between hardware and software. Software is just a way of putting hardware to use, and culture is just a way of putting our physiological equipment to use. To understand how hardware works is one thing, but to understand the uses to which it is put is something quite different. Understanding electrical circuits, in the neurons or in the chips, does nothing to help us understand how the sophisticated software of the 1990s evolved out of the primitive software of the 1950s, nor how assertions replaced grunts.
011