3 ms·
"Although Rorty’s polemical tone in his books and articles might suggest that he had a robust temperament, he was the opposite: gentle, shy, withdrawn, and sens
by gt_ 9y ago
"Although Rorty’s polemical tone in his books and articles might suggest that he had a robust temperament, he was the opposite: gentle, shy, withdrawn, and sensitive."
His tone actually comes off as the latter to me. His work is intelligent but ultimately that of a weak pushover. I'm glad nobody is discussing this old-fashioned neoliberal. He was smart, but did not do what this writer seems to think he did.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- elefanten 9y agoCan you elaborate. Those are serious claims and you gave absolutely no reasons. What positions indicate that he's a pushover? A weird charge in philosophy. What does he have to do with neoliberalism, favorite scareword of the year?
- miiiiiike 9y ago"Contingency, irony, and solidarity" appealed to me because it offered an argument for expanding our concept of "us", examining our beliefs, and evolving our positions without tolerating threats. It was a prescription for strength that avoids cruelty, not weakness.
- throwawayjava 9y ago> neoliberal Rorty was not a neoliberal in any honest sense of the word. He was a liberal and a progressive, to be sure, but was decidedly not a neoliberal. If you're confused about what "neoliberal" means, think "the intersection of things that Clinton and Reagan had in common", not "the things right-wing US commentators call liberal". Most true neoliberals in Congress are on the red team, for example. Literally the only place I can find Rorty himself described as a neoliberal is in some Marxist critique of something or other. And those authors doesn't even make it through their criticism of Rorty without a blatant grammatical error, leading me to believe they don't take their characterization very seriously.