He's a bullshit artist.

Practicing philosophy under capitalism is like betting against the odds.

Boomer mansplaining Dewey wannabe... I fancy Noelle here as being the much cooler, more impressive figure

17:47 Human history is also a matter of theory. Plus historical facts are only used to build up other theories, not to mention the fallacy of a unilinear history...

Wow, i never knew Rorty was a Simpsons charcter

This guy’s thought amounts to one huge shrug in the face of the irrational fanaticism of our current world, including that of the identity politics of the American Left, and the MAGA right.

“There’s nothing that a democratic community is responsible to, except itself.” Wow. What about loving your neighbor as yourself ? “Science is NOT in touch with any sort of Reality.” Wow. Dewey and Rorty are both dead, because Nature works that way. That seems to be pretty real.

kzbin.info/www/bejne/rqixiGdnbM1nb5Y 26 APR 2024 11-minute interview with Emory professor Noelle McAfee about protest arrest

I think people conform rather than confer. We need to redefine the roles we’ve created for people in society. The role the individual plays, the role the teacher plays or the parent or the official. We need to redefine these roles in a way that is more humane and functional to society. What we measure in society is what is killing us.

The interviewer is Noëlle McAfee a philosopher, writer and professor at Emory University. She was arrested today protesting for gaza in solidarity with her students.

Some of the stars of American philosophy glow in the dark. It is so obvious how they glow in the dark.

What's the name of the essay published in the NYT that you talk about near the end of the interview?

I think that what philosophy can do for american democracy is to expose it as a scam that it is. America is a type of oligarchy and plutocracy, not a democracy. The last two presidents, both of which i dislike, are a clear example of that. While both of the presidents are something to be ashamed of, there is a major difference between trump and biden. Trump actually wanted to do something and make decisions, while biden was happy with being a puppet. Given his dementia, biden was not able to be much more than a puppet, which is what the oligarchs like. On the other hand, trump had his own ideas, like peace negotiations with russia and north korea, which were efficiently sabotaged by the oligarchs and the plutocrats. Since the president is unable to enforce his own policy and gets attacked by the media and the justice system, if his policy does not suit the deep state, as it is being called today, there is no way that you can describe america as a democracy. The plutocrats are so much more powerful than the president, that they can impose censorship on him and have him removed from social media. Also, how can you call a country a democracy, if most of the population wants to end american wars, but that never happens, no matter who is in power? Or if most of the population wants healthcare, like Canada, Europe and the rest of the world, but never gets it, how can you call that a democracy?

I guess liberals are all for dialogue until they start talking about foreign Muslims.

One should not necessarily look to the people on top for moral guidance, for most are at heart Machiavellian. Instead one should look at the state of the world under their 'leadership', and at the long and bloody history they have wrought upon mankind !

Being on top is not merely a matter of being more educated than those on the bottom. For sure education is important, but so is the kind of education, the opportunities available for careers, promotions, wage or salary increases, investments, one's connections (or lack thereof), political maneuvering, shrewdness, entrepreneurship, original social status, race, class, gender, work ethic, competition (or lack thereof), risk management, actual desire to compete and become powerful and/or wealthy, luck... To simply say that those on the top tend to be more educated than those on the bottom, and to imply that these more educated people at the top are more 'open-minded' -- and make no mistake, what she means is they are more enlightened and therefore more moral -- on such things as the death penalty is elitism at its worst. Actually, what it takes to get to the top has less to do with education than it does with being heartless and shrewd.

As if a democracy could never become tyrannical. The tyranny of Athens over its neighbors was well established until brought to an end by its defeat at the hands of the Spartans. Moreover, it was that same democracy that sentenced Socrates to death. No, a democracy is always answerable to something higher than itself -- as in 'One nation under God'.

It's funny how those who attempt to give a relativistic definition of truth treat their own definition of truth as if it were itself an obvious and absolute truth.

Yes, but they never ask what justifies the consequences, right ?

The Church Fathers had a similar starting point: They asked what could philosophy do for faith. (This is sarcasm, btw -- for anyone who doesn't get it)

I like his advise on stepping back from an objective claim to political truths and instead grounding arguments on facts and narratives. That can do American politics and politics in general a lot of good

Embodiment of a wise, refined American

scratch a Pragmatist and you get a logical positivist, you can see an elite in his hypocrisy from his academic throne here.. stating Abortion is Ok then dismissing Kant.. But death penalty opposition from the highly educated view point is right?.. irony.. if their own child is an inconvenience it can be aborted/murdered as its convenient for the pragmatist which is pragmatic (ironic) , but a child murderer being executed for their crime bothers them, Yet they support abortion,.. this starts to show to how awful pragmatism is, its nominalism in its worst dress. .. they speak of equality, but do not enforce an eye for an eye or tooth for tooth.. They are all at sea. The main point is, a pragmatist like a Logical postivist is completely lost when it comes to Value Judgements. Sure when it comes to facts pragmatists make alot of sense. But they really need to stay away from politics and trying to run society as they have NO ideals and convictions and lack universals. Avoid like the plague or you will just run Tepid.

I just realized it was the interviewer herself who uploaded this. That's pretty cool

0:30 for the impatient

Yes, there is no truth, there is only therapy 🤗

I am educated and I am harrassed because I am educated.

My hero❤

I wonder what would you say about the state of Turkey today, 32 years later? In ten years time, from a unitary presidential constitutional republic Turkey will be transformed into the darkest possible version of some neo-ottomanistic Sultanate, with House of Erdogan ruling for eternity.

Rorty, "Meta-Philosopher"

"kinda funny" - interviewer McAfee

a great argument for socialism

This episode of The X-Files sucked donkey balls. Boring!

Is the golden rule the closest thing to a kantian-like moral imperative? Probably not, because how people want to be treated varies wildly. The golden rule is at most a procedural ethical rule for each individual and/or collectives.

I agree with him to all but he refuse fundamental of philosophy... philosphy is great

11:30 That's such nonsense. Whites are not at a disadvantage by affirmative action. It merely lifts the "poll tax" blocking qualified students from attending higher education. Do you really think there are not 100 qualified black students, in a country of 300 million and a world of 7 billion, that should be admitted to Harvard each year? It would be better described by saying whites will no longer be privileged over everyone else. Well, that 25 years of hindsight for you.

Don' t pick of me. I was just collecting stamps.

He is ahead of his time but so out of favor with the University system nowadays.

"political theorist" - that much is correct.

For being so smart, Rorty has no idea what a democracy is or he's never read the US constitution since it never mentions democracy at all, however it does mention Republicanism (Article 4 Section 4). Maybe he's just never read the document or has never read any classical literature explicitly describing what a democracy is. After all, democracy did not last 100 years in Athens where is was first invented, and there's clear reason why our forefathers did not choose it, and instead adopted a Republican form of government. People harang over the threat to democracy in Ukraine but even Google will tell you that Ukraine has a Republican form of government and not a democracy. I am also glad that Rorty was able to explain how wealth redistribution has worked so well in so many socialist/communist countries [sarcasm]

Internal Family systems therapy

It must seem like deja vu all over again Noëlle. 25 years after this interview, dark forces have once again taken over Afghanistan (this time with thousands of Americans left behind).

the CIA's favorite ass clown. Thank you, Langley, for this clown. Laughter is always good.

Had to check the date again when the interviewer mentioned the Taliban taking over Afghansitan.

6:20 "They are only sufficiently informed if they agree with you." - That's exactly Dewey wanted and people using his pseudo-justifications want. The myh of "sufficiently educated person" exists to empower those who decide what education is. A totalitarian system of credentialism and thought regulation.

Fantastic interview. Do you have the text about 2014 you talked about?

Rorty was a relativist. Wrong poit of view. The truth is absolute.

Thanks very much for the posting.

"if Habermas is right, what ever they *come to* is true..." I think the response here might be that right-wingers who have "come to" this conclusion have not actually engaged in a genuine thoughtful process but simply made a knee-jerk reaction based on stress, or else have been led to a false consciousness because of propaganda.

So Rorty, what do you think about this question? Rorty: "So Dewey thought..."