tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13305228.post116360186613158986..comments2023-11-02T11:32:38.324+00:00Comments on The Joy of Curmudgeonry: The Philosopher of LoquacityDeogolwulfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02197539477668018797noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13305228.post-71210184046122213272007-10-01T16:00:00.000+01:002007-10-01T16:00:00.000+01:00"Rorty says that descriptors come into being to re..."Rorty says that descriptors come into being to respond to social needs"<BR/><BR/>Is his description of the descriptors' coming-into-being itself a description of the descriptors' coming-into-being, that is to say, of the reality of the matter, or is it just a response to social needs? If the latter, we don't take it seriously as a description of the reality of the matter, though we might await the interesting account of why this social need is shared only by a handful of philosophers and their acolytes. <BR/><BR/>"Social needs are a different category entirely from the one that "nature" and "reality" supposedly point to."<BR/><BR/>What are you describing? Are you proposing that as a description of reality? Or are you merely responding to your social needs? <BR/><BR/>"It's surely just a modern re-statement of Kant's claim that we cannot know the ding an sich."<BR/><BR/>Ah, now we're getting somewhere . . .Deogolwulfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02197539477668018797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13305228.post-16866387832757006362007-09-22T15:51:00.000+01:002007-09-22T15:51:00.000+01:00I am afraid I don't follow. Your argument, that is...I am afraid I don't follow. Your argument, that is, not Rorty's.<BR/><BR/>"Nature" and "reality" purport to point to something outside mind/intersubjectivity. Rorty says that descriptors come into being to respond to social needs. Social needs are a different category entirely from the one that "nature" and "reality" supposedly point to. Therefore, while we might make arguments about the specific social needs that such descriptors might answer, the referents of such descriptors remain unknowable, being outside the realm of social needs that brought the descriptors into being. <BR/><BR/>I don't know why such heavy weather is being made of the notion that "objective reality" is unknowable. It's surely just a modern re-statement of Kant's claim that we cannot know the <I>ding an sich</I>. Rorty doesn't dismiss empirical adequacy, nor is he an idealist.Dr.Dawghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416571487451925246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13305228.post-1163629082206318882006-11-15T22:18:00.000+00:002006-11-15T22:18:00.000+00:00An aussie might call it a RORT.An aussie might call it a RORT.deariemehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06654632450454559188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13305228.post-1163623243859284572006-11-15T20:40:00.000+00:002006-11-15T20:40:00.000+00:00Yes, I've just slewed it round every which way and...Yes, I've just slewed it round every which way and it's a clear non-sequitur. Even the premises are highly suspect.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.com