The Putnam-Rorty Debate and the Pragmatist Revival

[@ericv7720]

I've read a lot of both Rorty and Putnam, and liked them both, but ultimately landed on team Rorty. The whole idea is not that there isn't a world "out there," but that philosophers can tell us exactly what that world is and offer up an inventory of all its possible contents is a bit of a stretch!

[@michaelgj23]

The editor has a wonderful sense of humor; I love it!

[@americanphilosopher]

Well, American Philosopher exists in several different forms, a 57 minute video exhibited in 2007, a 1:11 minute updated version uploaded both in segments and in its entirety since 2011, and an ongoing project that consists of short films like this one, culled from the interviews with additional material. (This one is technically American Philosopher #9. #11 is coming soon.) Although there are some overlaps, I try to avoid excessive duplication. Thanks for watching and for your comment.

[@TheDavid2222]

Thanks for these videos! They are very appreciated!

[@TruroArchaeology]

Thanks! - any more of this stuff gratefully received!

[@grezgorztube]

I see philosophy as the active desire to search for wisdom and to propagate wisdom. This ancient Greek idea of the philosopher as the friend and lover of wisdom, who is a politically active and physically healthy and strong person does not cease in its appeal to me. This tendency for philosophers to get sucked into their own little academic worlds where they get lost in theoretical debates over details I find to be out of touch with some kind of concern for the health of broader society.

[@olliepops1124]

May I (9 years later) ask you if you’ve read Wittgenstein, what you think about whatever Wittgenstein you may have read, and how the Hellenistic Greek model you describe maintains after considering Wittgenstein? Just curious. Cheers, my friend.

[@hilde45]

This is a great piece of film from a talented philosopher and filmmaker. By the way, if anyone's interested in a book length analysis of the Putnam-Rorty debate, I'd be honored if you looked at my book, Beyond Realism and Antirealism: John Dewey and the Neopragmatists.

[@astroboomboy]

@Rorty00 That is exactly what he is saying. Putnam does believe in development in the sciences, but he does not think our descriptions are the only way to describe the world. Our answers to questions are based to a certain degree on where we stand and the needs we have. We aren't solving problems, but we are discovering ways that can solve problems.

[@Sokrateles]

Die Schnitte sind gut gelungen, d. h. der Kontrast Putnam/Rorty wird ganz gut dargestellt. Es ist schwierig Philosophie mit filmischen Mitteln zu transportieren. Hier ist das gelungen.

[@dandiacal]

As an aesthete I respect Rorty's high regard for literature; however, I do think there is something to be said for scientific findings as revealing reality. They are two different kinds of knowledge, but knowledge is possible.

[@olliepops1124]

I’m curious how far the dearly departed Prof. Rorty would take that? I agree, it seems inarguable that he’s very much a champion of literature as an element of moral and analytical philosophy, and far beyond any attention any other thinker of his kind might give to our traditional understanding of the word. In fact, I ponder where the delineation from literature to philosophy is for Rorty, or if there is any separation at all aside from superficial and/or linguistic sort of classifications such as “genre”, etc. I oft presume that Rorty analyzes Carnap, Dewey, Heidegger, or Rawls just as he would Milton, Donne, Gide, or Orwell for his explanations in relation to ideas such as “truth”, “progress”, “rationality”, etc.

[@thejimmymeister]

@@olliepops1124 In another video on this channel, Rorty says that the lines between disciplines (he names philosophy and literature as a specific example) are of interest only to "librarians and deans."

[@BlackSabotage100]

I watched American Philosopher and did not see this segment there.

[@americanphilosopher]

Hi David. Thanks for the comment. I'll check out your book. You have a new one on Dewey too, right? (Everyone interested in this should also check out Talisse's recent article where he challenges the very idea that pragmatism was ever eclipsed, as well as vimeo.com/americanphilosopher/thefilm.)

[@radphilospher]

Anyone know where I can purchase the film? not on netflix or amazon

[@dancinmad]

@PavelSTL It does matter whether Hickman is referencing Rorty (specifically the post-modern mood of his writings) or pragmatism, specifically because Rorty rejects the pragmatic theory of truth. It's no secret that Rorty is basically in agreement with Derrida, and it seems Rickman was just giving a very general feel for how Rorty's writings fit with this mood.

[@manwaring]

There is no perspective one can reach through intellectual inquire and exclaim "I have it!". It's definitely one of the less vague post-modern terms.

[@HappyWithWhatsThere]

Putnam represents....about 7 different distinct philosophical viewpoints throughout his career lol.

[@evinnra2779]

Which proves that there is indeed something to search for. No?

[@cl1977]

@@evinnra2779 So the fact that people are searching for UFO’s proves that they exist?

[@OttoIncandenza]

@@evinnra2779 proves rorty's point more than anything.

[@andreaandrewmilne]

Nihilist and relativist - still dirty words in my book. The one I write footnotes in, and never return to the library. I've found few people whose actions and thoughts I admired, who didn't believe in objective truth, the possibility of identifying it, and the possibility of correcting ones errors. The virtuous circle of evidence, theory, prediction, correction. Objectors are usually looking for necessary truths as a foundation, and give up sulkily when only contingent truth is offered. x andrea

[@evinnra2779]

Moreover, one can't find what one is NOT looking for. Cheers :)

[@ericv7720]

Those are pejoratives applied by people who believe in objective truth to those who don't. So if I say, "That's true because that's what works for us now," without revealing how it would be true for all time, across all contexts, then I'm a relativist and/or a nihilist, and I'm supposed to have my feelings hurt!

[@PavelSTL]

@dancinmad well, then it's a very bad "general feel", especially if Hickman is going to criticize it, which turns his argument into a strawman. If you're going to put Rorty up in front as the defender on pragmatism and criticize it, then at least have the courtesy to choose the position Rorty would advocate. Otherwise, pick somebody like CS Pierce and beat him up with no longer relevant objections.

[@lupo-femme]

I don't know much about Rorty, but Derrida never said that we should stop talking about reality and that everything has many interpretations, this is just a typical straw man that comes from prejudice.

[@PavelSTL]

@dancinmad Without radical views in epistemology pragmatism wouldn't be pragmatism, so it doesn't matter what Hickman is referencing, and the preceding conversation is clearly about the "idea of" what (neo)pragmatism is all about. Puttman is also off the mark by saying he's not a pragmatist because he doesn't like their theory of truth. Rorty would never offer any theory of truth, he would argue against one. He's being clumped with classical pragmatists. Rorty would not approve of this video.

[@dandiacal]

I too like Haack. But, with all due respect to the late, and admittedly bright, Richard Rorty, Rorty's whole project stems from a misreading of James in particular. Rorty was really more continental and not as American as he would have had us think.

[@polymath7]

Hear, here.

[@kennmoe]

How did it go?

[@olivercroft5263]

putnams progress with the black and white filmed stuttering vehicle is simply gold. On another note the suspension bridge is an adequate form of engineering with many significant engineering advantage sover the structural kind, especially since if you meet a broad at the end you may take up the courage to ask her out (reference: donkey and the dragon)

[@dancinmad]

@PavelSTL I think Larry Hickman was characterizing Rorty's views on epistemology rather pragmatism per se. Sure, it's an over-simplification, but I wouldn't call it ignorant.

[@S2Cents]

@imsokool81 Most people in philosophy think Wittgenstein is full of shit? I didn't know that. Who do most people in philosophy admire/agree with that worked in the last 100 years?

[@ReflectiveJourney]

I would say William James, Saul kripke and Godel are the major contenders

[@hymnofashes]

What does it mean to say infinite reinterpretation is 'called for?' I call for French Postmodernism to be quiet.

[@idiothek]

btw i think the concept of "american pragmatism" is fruitless... i think rorty mentioned that in one of the vids in the series. anyway, the philosopher most faithful to the traditional pragmatists (peirce mostly, but with some james and some dewey) is an englishwoman! her name is susan haack.

[@olliepops1124]

Long time since I tried, but I seem to remember Peirce having a very small amount of surviving writings, is that not so? I read what I could find, and of course it seems underdeveloped to someone quite familiar with Dewey and James. Are we left to presume CP would have bloomed to be a great force in western analytical and moral philosophy, or is it often more that he used the right language, had the right friends, etc. Therefore, the mystique of his minimal production, sorrowful life, and early death can seem to be why he’s a name we can Google. I recall James almost going out of his was to praise Peirce sometimes. To this day, I believe the collection Menand edited on Pragmatism has a short essay by Peirce, but otherwise I have none of his work in my collection. Suggestions? Insights? Did you read Menand’s The Metaphysical Club?

[@KingThallion]

Both were right about each other but not themselves because one said “I know what you are but what am I”? Did I miss something?

[@grezgorztube]

That's more or less what my prof was telling me

[@idiothek]

i don't think he meant that in a good way :p

[@jamesellis33]

Might want to becareful, perhaps he read it or not. You cannot say. I think comprehension is the term you intended.

[@sergiosatelite467]

I find the nervous demeanor with which they all try to keep pragmatism’s pure name from the literary seductions of French postmodernism endearing. Cute. But the obsession to separate Rorty from pragmatism by adding a neo to the label smells of desperation. Why not spend a little more time comparing and contrasting, less on defending and attacking? Then again, I find all the people in the video uplifting and would take at least a flesh wound for all that remain alive.

[@slipperyweasel1]

5:58 onwards- Thank you Rorty, a great definition of what philosophy is and means to study.

[@matthewa6881]

lol as I watch this video I think to myself if I tried to explain the concepts in this video to many of the people I've encountered in my life (if not almost all of them), they'd just have no idea what I was talking about! But to me, knowing about the Putnam--Rorty debate is one of the most important things I know. Hillarious.

[@Dirtgut]

Matthew A Lol philosophy is like that.

[@KingThallion]

r/iamverysmart

[@polymath7]

I said, *in lucid terms*. Your comments are simply too vague to rebutt, and I am not going to waste my time in an attempt to extrude my interpretation through theses little boxes. Until you begin to express yourself coherently, we are through.

[@Dystisis]

"...infinite reinterpretability of the Golden Gate bridge..." What is actually meant? Nonsense! So much discussion over uses of language that are foreign to actual, ordinary uses of language that are effective. What is needed for the disintegration of all philosophical theories, including those of Rorty, can be found in the works of Wittgenstein.

[@rakeeeeeeeee]

Wittgenstein was mashed to pulp by Rorty.

[@orlandao01]

quine was a heavy pragmatist. even if not historically centered.

[@orlandao01]

this means c. i. lewis is missing in the series.

[@fede2]

so rorty became very po-mo at the end.

[@charlesmartel7502]

Here's a shocker: Richard Rorty...did not understand what philosophy is!

[@daimon00000]

Really? Haha

[@_VISION.]

Man shutup lol

[@xavierpaquin]

At least he puts forward argument... you only put forward opinion.

[@PavelSTL]

It's very irritating to hear people who don't understand the idea of pragmatism presume they do and then critisize it. This Larry Hickman guy should NEVER again explain to anybody the idea of pragmatism, because he doesn't appear to have a clue of what it is. In his words, "you never really get down to a point where you can say this is a point which we can stand on or which we can be successful in terms of operations..." WHAAAA???? This is clearly missing the point of pragmatism.

[@mitchellkato1436]

Statement are either true or false. For analytic philosophers this must be defended. I wonder what would the continental philosophers will say to this. (Buddhists would take the middle ground.)

[@dandiacal]

Well do you mean that he doesn't want, in a tyrannical fashion, to stop people from using truth, yes. But Rorty is on record as dismissing in the strongest sense, "truth." For Richard Wright to help people in pain there has to exist something called pain to alleviate. Is not to argue for a liberal project to make a truth claim? Is that not truth if only in a weaker sense of a thing's existence or nonexistence?

[@2309sparrow]

Please! This video spreads more misinformation and selective information than actuality....please see the entire videos from where the excerpts have been cut...

[@daimon00000]

Putnam hates Rorty lol

[@polymath7]

Now, would you like to quixotically pursue this little lexicographical pissing contest, or are you capable of saying something germane to the context of the context of this video?. Let us see. Tell me if you can, in lucid terms, how my two-word expression (or rather endorsement) of contempt for postmodernism suggests that I'm a moron, rather than the obverse, Ready? Go.

[@polymath7]

I cheer the jeering of postmodernism, and you take this to be sign that *I'm* the moron? (sardonic grin) What a curious inversion.

[@robertoalexandre4250]

Essentially, another debate in word play and irrelevant philosophical categories to the experience of life or to thinking about it (life). No wonder philosophy (the academic type practiced by Putnam and Rorty) has become obsolete and been eclipsed by life´s greater concerns and excitements and just the plain old thinking or anyone who wants to reflect on life, being, the mystery and simple unknowableness of it all in a greater sense. Anyone who asks for the meaning of life or (Herr Heidegger) being, should first ask what music means. They won´t get very far, but if they experience it, then they know, even if they cannot put it into one or antoher "ism."

[@justinlacek1481]

Roberto Alexandre But surely experiencing something doesn't give you the meaning of it, if that's what you're implying. Experience and understanding are two entirely separate concepts. The tribal shaman in ancient north america experienced the thunderstorm, but he didn't truly understand it. I have a whole range of experiences that I can't claim full knowledge about. You don't grasp the meaning of an event merely by experiencing it. This is why we ask questions, we look for explanations. When the space shuttle blows up during launch, we look for explanations, reasons, answers as to why it blew up. 'The meaning of life' is a relevant question to most people, not just philosophers. If you spend a day asking random strangers what the meaning of life is, I harbor serious doubts that you'll find more than 3 people (if any) who say that that's a pointless question.

[@robertoalexandre4250]

Justin, Agreed that conceptual thinking (albeit an experience in itself) is different from actually experiencing the thing that is being translated into concepts. However, when we poise a question like "what´s the meaning of life" (and agreed that it´s not pointless, only self-defeating unless you want to embrace some all-explaning "ism"), we cannot reify that thing called life outside of the human experience of it. The answer that would naturally follow would be "Life means...this or that" (as it were a word we were looking up in the dictionary). Perhaps the problem is in language itself - the word "meaning" , which is very misleading here. What does a Kafka novel mean? What does a Bach fugue mean? What does a poem mean? That for which we have no language to express remains silent (to paraphrase Wittengenstein). When we experience those things, that experience becomes greater than any added a posteriori conceptual and verbal thinking. Sure water is H20 (as the shaman would not know) but what´s that compared with drinking it or diving into it on a hot day? Thunder and water are just isolated phenomenon, for what the heck is even life itself, let alone its meaning? This is not to say we should not ask those questions or seek them, but we should also be quite aware of the limits of our conceptual thinking and the expanse of our experience. Thanks for the input. Best regards,

[@_VISION.]

What's funny is that you agree with Rorty

[@tagge100938]

Speaking clearly; pragmatism is true because it works! ;)

[@dbersch]

Why can't the Gold Gate Bridge be built better? Why must we stop interpreting science and technology?