Jefferson, Christ, King, etc. were all "ahead of their time" in the sense that now, looking back, most of us agree with them more than with the people they were arguing with at the time. I suppose we don't have to call this "progress" if we don't' want to, but it doesn't seem there is any harm in doing so either, for it certainly feels like "progress" to us.

@ Why should it matter whether this “feels” like progress to us? This seems like a way of privileging our historical standpoint with a moral authority without actually providing a rationally defensible explanation for that authority. If we are to give ourselves the authority to make that judgement, we then require a trans-historical standard by which we can say that our modern sensibilities are capable of judgment. Otherwise, we are simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions without actually engaging in the practice of philosophy.

@@joshcotlar2099 It "feels like progress" in the sense that we would rather live in this society than the one that Jefferson, or Christ, or King were reacting against. We are saying something like "those people were more like us than their contemporaries and we now live in a society more like the one they were advocating for, which is so much the better for us." Although yes, any given person is free to disagree with whether or not this is "progress." But I don't see why we shouldn't use the word "progress" to describe our feeling of living in a society we are more happy with than some other example from the past. Rorty's whole point is that we can still use words like "progress" to describe our attempt to "make things better" without invoking some kind of "trans-historical standard," but rather just our agreement that we are glad we no longer keep slaves, for example. Yes, there is a sense in which we are "simply judging the past by our current culture’s cultural biases and assumptions,' but so what? Why shouldn't we allow ourselves to do that? It sounds like you want philosophy to be exactly the sound and fury that Rory warns us about.

@@ericb9804 I would argue that the deeper problem here is conveying a sense of moral authority to what is broadly assented to in society, and what is I think actively dangerous in Rorty’s reasoning is the complacency by which he refers to this assent as “progress”. Perhaps this view appears a anachronistic to Rorty, but I find his constant conflation of what is with what ought to be to be far more dubious than appeals to transhistorical standards. By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself. If anything, Rorty’s view approaches something akin to a complacent nihilism, one which not only does not believe we can provide a rational account of how we ought to live with ourselves in relation with one another, but one which actively relishes this supposed fact. If one is to be honest with the implications of the death of “truth” in the abstract or with the impossibility of a real, logically defensible account of what is right in actuality, then it makes far better sense to simply go with Nietzsche’s line of reasoning that “progress” as a concept is a fantasy and that what is “right” is completely at the whim of subjective preference, reducible to the will to power. Nietzsche believed that we ought instead to create our own values according to these preferences, and that this creative approach could provide a newly redeeming experience for life. Yet, he himself could not handle this perspective on life, and as a consequence, gradually went insane as a result his philosophy of creative destruction-precisely because what it means to be human is the wish to have a higher significance in life. In fairness to Rorty, we would perhaps be happier to become complacent in believing that our culture’s values and way of life is indeed “right” and “progressive” simply by being our own. Yet, one can only adopt this position by first coming to an absolute state of nihilism, and then after this fact, to be capable of the utmost dishonesty with ourselves. If Nietzsche’s approach drove him to madness, then Rorty’s seems to drive us toward complacency and philosophical suicide. All this is to say, there are actually tremendous stakes to developing and believing in the possibility of a rational defense of the good life qua man, not simply in the parochial or culturally relative sense but in the actual and ideal sense. Socrates was not a fool, we require a vision of what can be to sustain human life, one which is believed for its own sake and purpose. If this view seems unfashionable-so be it! The unfashionable does not equal the immoral or the unreasonable. If anything, views that are common are popular precisely because they appeal to the lowest common denominator, to our collective ignorance, to conformism and consumerism, breeding what Thoreau aptly referred to as a state of resignation by which “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” So in a sense yes, I wholeheartedly adopt the perspective that Rorty took to be all that is wrong with philosophy. I do so gladly and instead turn the tables around and pronounce, J’Accuse!

@@joshcotlar2099 "By this reasoning, there is truly no way that opposing cultures can reconcile their differences precisely because there is no standard to settle disagreements in values besides appeals to culture itself. " - Yes. Buts thats exactly what we experience, isn't it? Which is why it seems curiously pointless to complain about it. Better to just accept it and do the best we can, I say. It sounds to me like you are just complaining that you don't like being reminded that your positions are no more certain than those you oppose, but rather than face this face this for what it appears to be, you would rather pretend that you have some access to some "truth" that other people don't have, by way of your "philosophy" or "religion" or "reason" or whatever and that gives you the right to tell them what to do, for their own good, of course. How convenient for you. Yes, the stakes are indeed high, but there is nothing "fashionable" about any of this. Besides, even if there were, that is no reason to fault it, right? There is no reason for you to pretend that you are some underdog champion of "what can be to sustain human life," whatever you think you mean by that. C'mon, man, get over yourself. I don't think Rorty, or any pragmatist, would say that their ideas will necessarily lead to a happy end for humanity, just that the chances of getting there are greater if we stop fantasizing about how much easier things would be if only we had what we clearly don't have. But we DO have each other and that will either be enough, or it won't. The choice is ours.

Lol Rorty has talked about this at length.

What's your IQ?

@@dommyajd9033 Why do you ask ?

That's literally the name of this channel, my guy

Thank you Professor McAfee. Saw that in the news, didn’t realize she was this interviewer.

Hopefully, the heartless and shrewd among the top are not the majority.

don't facts belong in the narrative of objectivity?

Yes they do. But in social science it helps to not be absolute in categories. What he means is taking your political (ideological) opponents in good faith. And be modest and circumspect in your own claims..

Calm down you t*ts, LOL Isn't erdogan winning legitimate elections? And why wouldn't a neo-ottoman empire be a cool thing to happen!?, just because you wouldn't like it? but what if turks want to have a neo-ottoman empire. Your values and preferences are hammered into your conscious and subconscious by your family, society, media, literature, hollywood etc. so is that of turks. Your preferences are good for you and theirs are for them.

1997. A halcyon age, when compared to 2022