4 ms·

In "Philosophy and Social Hope" I think he addresses what you and probably a lot of people see as a contradiction. He supports the Western views of democracy,

In "Philosophy and Social Hope" I think he addresses what you and probably a lot of people see as a contradiction. He supports the Western views of democracy, the rights of individualism, etc and points to the success of the western world as having to do with the result of these ideas being whiled embraced. Yet, you're right, his views are also very Nietzschean. So he can't say that the success of these ideas is because of something "innate" or "universally metaphysical" behind them. They simply were tools that were used to yield certain historical results. It's been a while since I've read any Rorty, but I'm nearly certain that when he is talking about this he uses some language about "fate" vs "luck". Where we like to think that it was the fate of these western values to produce great societies, when really it could be, from an epistemic viewpoint, just luck.

woodandsteel 9y ago
Let me say a bit about where I am coming from. I see Rorty as an example of what I call a "pseudo-anti-foundationalist" Authentic anti-foundationalism holds there is a real independent reality, and we can say a great deal definite about it, we just can never describe it entirely or with a single set of concepts. Rorty's Nietzschean pseudo-anti-foundationalism holds there is nothing definite out there and so we are free to make our descriptions as we wish. Many people like this idea because of the common claim that different cultures think of reality entirely differently, but that is not true. In fact there are enormous commonalities, and this is because there are real, independent realities that we all have to deal with to survive, like the necessity to eat, and what counts as food. As for liberal democracy, I see it as based on a more authentic practical anti-foundationalism that was developed before academic philosophy got there. So for instance, if you can't capture all of reality with a single set of precise concepts, then you need to have lots of different people working on understanding it and contributing to making decisions, which is why you need free speech and various other characteristics of liberal democracy. Which is what Dewey, a much more sincere anti-foundationalist, said. >It's been a while since I've read any Rorty, but I'm nearly certain that when he is talking about this he uses some language about "fate" vs "luck". Where we like to think that it was the fate of these western values to produce great societies, when really it could be, from an epistemic viewpoint, just luck. Yes, that is an important point.

woodandsteel 9y ago

Let me say a bit about where I am coming from. I see Rorty as an example of what I call a "pseudo-anti-foundationalist" Authentic anti-foundationalism holds there is a real independent reality, and we can say a great deal definite about it, we just can never describe it entirely or with a single set of concepts. Rorty's Nietzschean pseudo-anti-foundationalism holds there is nothing definite out there and so we are free to make our descriptions as we wish. Many people like this idea because of the common claim that different cultures think of reality entirely differently, but that is not true. In fact there are enormous commonalities, and this is because there are real, independent realities that we all have to deal with to survive, like the necessity to eat, and what counts as food. As for liberal democracy, I see it as based on a more authentic practical anti-foundationalism that was developed before academic philosophy got there. So for instance, if you can't capture all of reality with a single set of precise concepts, then you need to have lots of different people working on understanding it and contributing to making decisions, which is why you need free speech and various other characteristics of liberal democracy. Which is what Dewey, a much more sincere anti-foundationalist, said. >It's been a while since I've read any Rorty, but I'm nearly certain that when he is talking about this he uses some language about "fate" vs "luck". Where we like to think that it was the fate of these western values to produce great societies, when really it could be, from an epistemic viewpoint, just luck. Yes, that is an important point.