Thread by @ironick

Thanks for 👇. It got me to read his last lecture. In it, he makes an astonishing claim:
"[T]he parochial, historically-conditioned character of justification is compatible with the eternal and absolute character of truth."
I find it almost impossible to believe Rorty said

https://twitter.com/See_The_0cean/status/1391598798795800580

this. Here's the context:
«But pragmatists, at least those of my sect, do not think that anything—either the physical world or the consensus of inquirers—makes beliefs true. We have as little use for the notion of "what makes a true sentence true" as we do for that of "what a

true sentence corresponds to." On our view, all consensus does is help us recognize moral truths. We can cheerfully agree that truths—all kinds of truths—are eternal and absolute. It was true before the foundations of the world were laid both that 2 + 2 = 4 and that I should be

wearing this particular tie today. It was also true that the lash is, in the sense of the Eighth Amendment, a cruel punishment. Eternal and absolute truth is the only kind of truth there is, even though the only way we know what is true is by reaching a consensus that may well

prove transitory. All that can be salvaged from the claim that truth is a product of consensus is that finding out what other people believe is, most of the time, a good way to decide what to believe oneself.
…
Our judgments of progress and of rationality will remain as

parochial as our judgments of everything else. Yet the parochial, historically-conditioned character of justification is compatible with the eternal and absolute character of truth.»
I've never heard Rorty ever describe truth as absolute and eternal. Has anyone?!? It seems to be

the kind of thing he rails against, ie "the project of escaping from time and chance". I'm finding this really hard to square with my understanding of Rorty. Can some Rortians help me out? @Jeffrey_Howard_ @Adrian_Rutt @_Thrill_House_

@threadreaderapp unroll