Richard Rorty on Pan-Relationalism (1996)

Richard Rorty doing what he does.
#Philosophy #Rorty #Pragmatism

[@cdk2968]

Many take issue with the manner in which Rorty reads, regardless of the content, noting that he somehow appears bored with his own text. I believe this is likely due to Rorty having been an extremely shy and introverted person. Personally, I enjoy listening to him immensely. His lecturing style aligns with his fundamentally modest stance of "I am merely making suggestions here to enrich and refine the discourse; I am not preaching any purported absolute truths."

[@GNARGNARHEAD]

that man had a gift.. for sucking the air out of a room but still

[@sergiosatelite467]

4:05: 20th Century Panrelationalism 10:39: The Number Seventeen 42:19: Darwin & Essentialism

[@fourtimez]

Great stuff

[@naymylord]

Typical Nietschean ingratitude Great line

[@richardrumana5025]

Thanks for posting. There are other Rorty videos on you-tube that are not as good. Also, was this lecture ever published? Different title?

[@10joeuun]

Would also be interested in reading a published version of this if anyone knows where to find it.

[@GPack17]

@@10joeuun It's a chapter in the book "Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism", published just last year.

[@IKnowNeonLights]

Finally a great lecture, thank you, (except the pot's and pans that I can never understand, as I am not good with name's.) (Trying to see things as they are.) Is a sentence used right at the end of this lecture, after some mumbling from the audience. And right there is the essence of philosophy, the essence of everything, of all disciplines, and every action in life, (what seems to be called a ((pragmatic)) point of view), how the earliest philosophy possibly began. And trying to see things as they are, is the hardest, almost all of the "time" the impossible thing to do, let alone achieve effortlessly. Everyone keeps on pointing to evolution, and the general theory of relativity, among a few others as a form of this point of view, (the pragmatic one), a point of view the makes absolute sense, that see's things as they are. I will not attack any of these theories by saying they are wrong, not fitting observations, because they do work, but only under the shadow of something very simple. I will instead point to their weaknesses, tricks, and reverse childlessness used in most of them. First let me share something, to think as thought experiment before I proceed. I would argue!! The true (pragmatic point of view). The expression of, (he/she is a late bloomer) has its origins from childhood. Anyone has experienced, and still does even when adult a very important sequence of actions, that is first encountered when anyone is a child. If a child has anything on their hand, and it is taken from them by an adult or another child, and then it is proceeded to show to that child what they could do with it. Unless it makes perfect sense as in a line and a circle type of geometry for the child!!! Then the child will attempt to grab it from the others hand, (or when given back) while voicing his/her discontent, and proceed to show with full confidence, the real purpose of whatever was to begin with and now is back on their hand. Often by rubbing it against a surface, banging it against a surface, or throwing it against a surface. As simple as the best geometry there is, that of a line and a circle. This very act remains with anyone throughout their life. It is the fact that the person (or anything) you are in contact with knows, if you do know aslo. (Meaning a stone knows it is a stone, same as you do) When this does not match, than the matter is taken to be completed by the anyone that was proven wrong and has the ability to do so, just like in the case of a child. The pragmatic theories then!!! The theory of general relativity is a theory of a time's table in four dimensions, with the function of multiplying together with other functions, as the representatives of time. If you take a grids times table and form a cube, you will get the theory of general relativity. And this times table cube can be bent, folded, and expanded, it can be infinite, and have a beginning and end, (the big spark), and this big spark can be from any direction of the cube. It can have black holes, and dark matter, anything you want, it can have it. If you add to it, subtraction and addition among many other functions you will get everything all the way to anti matter. The theory of evolution is the same, based on the very same and simpleness of a time's table, with one extremely clever trick, that it uses it more than the other theories. The trick is!! Blindness, complete and total blindness. All of these theories including the simple times table on it's own, have copied and pasted according to need and necessity to exist as a theory, from the only numbers that are. That of zero to nine. The only numbers that are, that of zero to nine, have copied and pasted from the only theory that sees things as they are, (the pragmatic point of view). This theory is known as geometry, in its core, it is a line and a circle. A line and a circle is the only measure that exists. It is the reason why language is geometrical a system (meaning linear and nonlinear simultaneously) that if human anyone cannot avoid it, you cannot learn it, or unlearn it. You can only practice it. Even if you are blind or deaf. Geometry does not have time, you can give it time if you want, but it does not have it. You see, feal, taste, touch, hear and think all of it. Be that as a circle or as a line. Where the theory of evolution together with most of other theories, have a major weakness!!! Is the fact of presuming complete blindness, as if geometry, that of a line and a circle does not exist, as if it is not there, only to exist until it is broken down in measures. This is the reverse childlessness trick I have explained in the beginning. If this was true, if evolution works on complete blindness upon contact, and then adopting at the best optimization state for such contact, then the best optimization state, would be anything but a system like a human body, or any other living being and organisms. You cannot take geometry a simple line and a circle and call it, numbers, evolution, general theory of relativity without stating what they truly are, using the trick of assuming complete blindnes. If it was the case, the pragmatic point of view, the seeing things as they are, anyone wouldn't need statistics or the uncertainty principle. Unconsciousness is the problem, not consciousness. If you start from complete blindness, than all you senses and understand has serious weaknesses, including the best working theories. A line and circle (geometry) does not have that problem, you can give it, but it does not have it. Meaning a child is already ahead of all the best scientific theories, by simply being conscious of geometry as simple as a line and a circle. Then he/she has all that consciousness eroded by making them unconscious through various ways, tricks, possessions and illusions. Having to always start from a position of assumed blindness in order to understand things he/she already knows, just like geometry or language.

[@fastinbulvis2223]

Hard to listen to a man who clearly does not give AF about what he's saying. The "oh hum" tone of voice is irritating. But it's also convincing.

[@alanmonteiro2707]

@@fastinbulvis2223 I get it lol. But that is his common demeanor. He was like that most of the time, not only in class. The content of what he is saying though, at least for me, largely compensates the indifferent-like tone of his voice. Worth saying, however, that all the students are following the text with each a copy of their own, and after he finishes reading they all discuss the contents

[@eternaldelight648]

There must be a thing like relational essentialism 🤔

[@daimon00000]

Theres a BBC documentaire about Rorty, but I cant find. Someone has it?

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

Yeah, that's something I've been looking for, but haven't been able to find it. I also want to get my hands on his debate with Searle on truth, among various other things.

[@daimon00000]

@@Philosophy_Overdose debate in video?

[@Philosophy_Overdose]

@@daimon00000 Yeah.

[@freeri87]

Can you find the Alfred Ayer-Arne Naess debate?

[@VardaTruffle]

Rorty's way of speaking is so hilariously condescending and flippant that it's makes for a great anti philosopher. "Yeh analytical philosophy basically sucks and let me make this point again by name dropping a few Continental names. But anyway they're not important either, actually nothing is important."

[@tarhunta2111]

Is this guy taking the piss?

[@divertissementmonas]

I'm 20 minutes in and all I can think about is those poor students...

[@gerhitchman]

Why? I'd kill to attend one of these lectures.

[@jakecarlo9950]

Speed reading your latest paper and sounding bored doing it is quite an accomplishment but it’s not a “lecture.”

[@gerhitchman]

@@jakecarlo9950 Fair, but that's kind of just Rorty's style. Dude has the most boring voice but the most riveting content.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

@@jakecarlo9950 I'm guessing they all have handouts and know the intermediate stuff at least. Grad school can get at most this dry.

[@dionysianapollomarx]

@@jakecarlo9950 on second thought, he's literally just table reading a chapter of the same name from his book, which I've read