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
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_

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Contingently Ironist

Contingently Ironist Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ironick

12 Jan
@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs First, Thank you for sharing your "opinionated introduction"/reading list. I love it!
Second, Thank you for highlighting the @QuillRKukla essay on stances. It's amazing! It brings together several threads I was in the middle of working on: the interpretive stance, coping,
@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs Davidsonian triangulation, and of course pragmatism. Their generalization of the stance concept to economic stance and interpretive stance was EXACTLY what I was getting at in my tweet.

My favorite line: "There is no neutral stance." In other words, there is no
@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs neutral/universal way of interpreting patterns. Interestingly, Rorty made a very similar claim regarding his panrelationalism: "Naturalism as the claim that (a) there is no occupant of space-time that is not linked in a single web of causal relations to all other occupants and
Read 10 tweets
2 Dec 20
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @FreihandDenker "There doesn't appear to be any..completely moral action."

It's much more than that.

"Anything can be made to look good or being redescribed." -- Rorty

So ANY action can be redescribed as moral or immoral.

When that sinks in, the contingency of morality is staggering.
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @FreihandDenker Examples:

Eating an apple. The ultimate sin.

Sacrificing your son. The ultimate act of faith.

@Jeffrey_Howard_ @FreihandDenker BTW, Rorty wasn't the first to make this claim about redescription. I'm collecting such claims. I've only found two other so far:

1) "I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct 20
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks Sorry to jump in late, but I think in his "Reply to Ramberg" (mentioned in your excellent recent podcast) Rorty partially recanted the sentiment expressed in "Truth is simply a compliment…": “Ramberg sets me straight here too. He tells me, in effect, that _it was a mistake /1
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks on my part_ to go from criticism of attempts to define truth as accurate representation of the intrinsic nature of reality to _a denial that true statements get things right_. What I should have done, he makes me realize, is to grant Davidson's point that _most of our beliefs /2
@Jeffrey_Howard_ @JonAlanSchmidt @Mookmonster30 @FerraraKev @CSPeirceSpeaks about anything_ (snow, molecules, the moral law) must be true of that thing - _must get that thing right_.” p374

In his reply, Rorty clarified what he means by "true of". He does so by more fully embracing and explicating Davidson’s triangulation: ‘Since I now want to agree /3
Read 17 tweets
15 Jun 20
Prediction: The #SCOTUS ruling in #Bostock will become the central case in law school classes teaching the meaning of "but-for" causation. The entire decision comes down to applying but-for causation analysis! /1
'In the language of law, this means that Title VII’s “because of ” test incorporates the “‘simple’” and “traditional” standard of but-for causation. Nassar, 570 U. S., at 346, 360. That form of causation is established whenever a particular outcome...' /1
'...would not have happened “but for” the purported cause. See Gross, 557 U. S., at 176. In other words, a but-for test directs us to change one thing at a time and see if the outcome changes. If it does, we have found a but-for cause.

This can be a sweeping standard. ...' /2
Read 6 tweets
14 Nov 18
Best jargon-free description of #designthinking approach we applied at @ibmdesign … by @mjane_h at @autodesk: To advocate for investment, we don’t start by rationalizing the things we need to do. We start with a vision of what designing and making can feel like to our users. /1
That vision opens with a single, powerful statement that the business can rally around, with a few supporting points to make it visceral and visual. When we’ve done this well, business leaders see their own strategic intent in what we’ve presented. /2
The discussion turns to unpacking possibilities for what strategic intent might be like from this point of view. Only then, when leadership feels it too, do we introduce the areas of investment we request. /3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!