Sign in

Rorty QOTD

@rortyquotes.bsky.social
61 followers 1 following 381 posts

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

PostsRepliesMedia
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 2h
Before we can rid ourselves of ontology, we shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion. Phil as Poetry p.4 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Ontology
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
000 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 16/10/2026
Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. Phil as Poetry p.4 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Ontology
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
021 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 15/10/2026
The fear that the imagination goes all the way down causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality, “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Imagination
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
031 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 14/10/2026
At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Imagination
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
031 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 13/10/2026
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Imagination
My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
011 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 12/10/2026
Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #RealityVsAppearance
When it comes to Reality, however, there is no such thing as common sense. Unlike the case of trees, there are no platitudes accepted by both the vulgar and the learned. In some circles, you can get general agreement that the ultimate nature of Reality is atoms and void. In others, you can get a consensus that it is God—an immaterial, non-spatio-temporal, being. The reason quarrels among metaphysicians about the nature of Reality seem so ludicrous is that each of them feels free to pick a few of his favorite things and claim ontological privilege for them. Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness.
021 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 11/10/2026
Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #Ontology
When it comes to Reality, however, there is no such thing as common sense. Unlike the case of trees, there are no platitudes accepted by both the vulgar and the learned. In some circles, you can get general agreement that the ultimate nature of Reality is atoms and void. In others, you can get a consensus that it is God—an immaterial, non-spatio-temporal, being. The reason quarrels among metaphysicians about the nature of Reality seem so ludicrous is that each of them feels free to pick a few of his favorite things and claim ontological privilege for them. Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness.
013 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 10/10/2026
One can only dissent from common sense on a particular point if one is willing to accept most of the rest of what common sense says. Phil as Poetry p.3 #Pragmatism #Rorty #CommonSense
The difference between ordinary things and Reality is that when learning how to use the word "tree" we automatically acquire lots of true beliefs about trees. As Donald Davidson has argued, most of our beliefs about such things as trees and stars and wristwatches have to be true. If somebody thinks that trees are typically blue in color, and that they never grow higher than two feet, we shall conclude that whatever she may be talking about, it is not trees. There have to be many commonly accepted truths before we can raise the possibility of error. Any of these truths can be put in doubt, but not all of them at once. One can only dissent from common sense on a particular point if one is willing to accept most of the rest of what common sense says.
021 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 09/10/2026
Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. We should do our best to get rid of it. 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.
021 0
Rorty QOTD @rortyquotes.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0
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 0