Contingently Ironist Profile picture
I am an Ironist: https://t.co/Q2pK9YLaNA
Apr 6 4 tweets 3 min read
@YakSaHealth @cancelself What's odd is that you bring up an example of a kind of person (psychopath) that simply LACKS a constraint/attachment, when my entire thread of commentary on @cancelself's tweet has been arguing against the goal of eliminating/lacking constraints/attachments, eg desires, and in @YakSaHealth @cancelself favor of having the right attitude towards them.

So yes, apparently you're not following my reasoning here.
Jan 14 10 tweets 15 min read
@FHaruspex @Jeffrey_Howard_ @joseph_morris @teddyburkhardt @SeanCr8on @bodhidave3 Fruitionism (F) has a LOT to say about values such as good and bad. I hinted at some of it with "generate novel..axiological values" and "'telos pluralism'...shall always be 'tragic'", but it's hard to describe every detail of a philosophy in a set of tweets.🙂

So to describe a @FHaruspex @Jeffrey_Howard_ @joseph_morris @teddyburkhardt @SeanCr8on @bodhidave3 bit more, F, like Pragmatism, claims value pluralism, not value monism, so there is no concept of "the good", only a plurality of frameworks of good. F generalizes this to claim "axiological pluralism": there is a plurality of value frameworks (aesthetic,
Jan 13 4 tweets 2 min read
Here is the Brandom/Rorty discussion I said I'd share. It clearly shows that Rorty valorizes novelty (ends) over reducing suffering (means). I tweeted about it a while back, so here is an unroll of the thread: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1444392…
And here is more of the passage: "In such passages as this, Brandom leaves himself open to the same accusations of pseudo-
aristocratic condescension & ivory-tower aestheticism as are frequently leveled at me.
...
I think that it is worth subjecting oneself to such accusations to insist on this point."

So do I.
Jan 11 6 tweets 2 min read
What a serendipitous event: I just (re)stumbled across Richard Rorty's favorite William James passage (and no, it's not "truth is a compliment..."):
«The difference between the two views of morality that I have been discussing in these remarks is well illustrated by the contrast between the pope’s dismissive reference to “the ego and its desires,” and my favorite passage in the writings of the American philosopher William James. James wrote as follows: “Every de facto claim creates insofar forth an obligation. Take any demand however slight which any
Jan 11 5 tweets 1 min read
To honor William James on his birthday, here is another one of my favorites. For "true philosophers"😉 is no final valley (equilibrium) in the forest, only perpetual new joys and new sorrows (ridges): "And yet if he be a true philosopher he must see that there is nothing final in any actually given equilibrium of human ideals, but that, as our present laws and customs have fought and conquered other past ones, so they will in their turn be overthrown by any newly discovered order which will hush up the complaints that they still give rise to, without
Oct 2, 2021 7 tweets 6 min read
@jensensuther @ikesharpless @Jeffrey_Howard_ Your mention of Brandom reminded me that he said something that I interpret as a profoundly moving paean to freedom as a means to fruitfulness.

"It is our capacity to transform the vocabularies in which we live and move and have our being, and so to create new ways of being ImageImageImage @jensensuther @ikesharpless @Jeffrey_Howard_ (for creatures like us). Our moral worth is our dignity as potential contributors to the [fruitful] Conversation.
...
The vocabulary vocabulary brings into view the possibility that our overarching public purpose should be to ensure that a hundred private flowers blossom,
Jul 2, 2021 9 tweets 2 min read
Thanks SO much for recommending this essay. It triggered a powerful epiphany for me: 'tragic meliorism' is another way of saying 'will to power'. This passage makes the connection:
«As I understand the pragmatic perspective on life, it is an attempt to make it possible for men to live in a world of inescapable tragedy, which flows from the conflict of moral ideals, without lamentation, defiance, or make-believe. According to this perspective, even in the best of human worlds there will be tragedy—tragedy perhaps without bloodshed but certainly not
May 11, 2021 8 tweets 3 min read
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
Jan 12, 2021 10 tweets 9 min read
@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
Dec 2, 2020 4 tweets 3 min read
@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 bad..by 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.

😉
Oct 16, 2020 17 tweets 21 min read
@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
Jun 15, 2020 6 tweets 2 min read
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
Nov 14, 2018 4 tweets 2 min read
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