1 E DITORIAL & A DVI SORY B OARDS EDITOR IN CHIEF Alexander Kremer (Univesity of Szeged, Hungary) alexanderkremer2000@yahoo.com ASSOCIATE EDITORS Herman Saatkamp (Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, USA) Richard Shusterman (Florida Atlantic University, USA) Radim Šíp (Masaryk University, Czech Republic) Charlene Haddock Seigfried (Purdue University, USA) Paul Thompson (Michigan State University, USA) Emil Višňovský Philipp Dorstewitz (University of Maastricht, Belgium) p.dorstewitz@maastrichtuniversity.nl Don Morse (Webster University, USA) dj.morse@yahoo.com Henrik Rydenfelt (University of Helsinki, Finland) henrik.rydenfelt@helsinki.fi Wojciech Malecki (University of Wroclaw, Poland) wojciech.malecki@wp.pl (Comenius University & Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia) Christopher Voparil (Union Institute and University, USA) Kathleen Wallace (Hofstra University, USA) Gert Wegmarshaus (European University Viadrina, Germany) Nina Yulina (Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Science, Russia) ADVISORY BOARD Lyubov Bugaeva (Saint Petersburg State University, Russia) Gideon Calder (University of Wales, United Kingdom) James Campbell (University of Toledo, USA) Ramón del Castillo (Universidad Nacional Educación a Distancia, Spain) Vincent Colapietro (Pennsylvania State University, USA) Michael Eldridge † (University of North Carolina, Charlotte, USA) Tigran Epoyan (UNESCO Moscow Office, Russia) Susan Haack (University of Miami, USA) Richard Hart (Bloomfield College, USA) Larry Hickman (Southern Illinois University, USA) Alan Malachowski (University of Stellenbosch, South Africa) Armen Marsoobian (Southern Connecticut State University, USA) Carlos Mougán (University of Cadiz, Spain) Miklos Nyiro (University of Miskolc, Hungary) Gregory Pappas (Texas A&M University, USA) Ramón Rodríguez Aguilera (University of Sevilla, Spain) John Ryder (State University of New York, USA) 3 T ABLE O F C ONTENTS ................................ 5 I N T R O D U C T I O N : A N A M E R I C A N L E F T I S T P A T R I O T Alexander Kremer ......................................... T H E C O N T I N G E N C Y O F R O R T Y ’ S S O U R C E S : A P O E T I C E X A M P L E Richard Shusterman .................................... ............. 9 R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore ................................................................ ..................................... 14 R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susanaa de Castr Castro ........................................................................................... ..................................... 23 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: AN IRONIC PORTRAIT A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro ...................... ..................................... 31 P U T T I N G P R A G M A T I S M I N T O B E T T E R S H A P E : R O R T Y A N D J A M E S Alan Malachowski .................................. ............. 51 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel ....................................... ............................ 56 A CASE STUDY ON THE LIMITS OF IRONIC REDESCRIPTION: R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan van Danka ............................................................................................ ..................................... 68 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer ........................ 78 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller .............................................................. ..................................... 94 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka ................................ ................................... 105 “A L I B E R A L W H O I S U N W I L L I N G T O B E A N I R O N I S T ” R O R T Y ’ S R E L A T I O N T O H A B E R M A S György Pápay ........................................................................... .............................. 118 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman .............................. ........... 123 RORTY AND BRANDOM: ......... 133 P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil ............................ W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters ................................................................ ................................... 144 BOOK REVIEW: ....... 155 F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia .......................... 2 01 0 0) James Campbell ............................................................. ................................... 163 M I C H A E L L I N N E L D R I D G E ( 1 94 1 -2 4 INTRODUCTION: representatives of neopragmatism? Not touching now AN AMERICAN LEFTIST PATRIOT on the cardinal subject of truth, we can say that in Alexander Kremer James’ and Dewey’s opinion philosophy has to speak (Editor in Chief, Pragmatism Today; Professor of about real human life, and it must serve our permanent Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, improvement. However, human life is basically practice, University of Szeged; Director of the John Dewey and that is why theory is also part of this practice taken Research Center of Hungary; it in the widest sense. Even theory is a tool of our alexanderkremer2000@yahoo.com, practice, the main aim of which is to improve our social kremeralexander5@gmail.com) and individual lives. But life, understood as practice, obvioualy cannot have a more human aim on the social level than to improve our community life, to establish It is my pleasure to introduce the first issue of the democratic institutions, and to build democracy. That is second volume of Pragmatism Today (Volume 2, Issue 1, why Dewey’s ultimate intention was to create a Summer 2011), because it is a thematic collection of genuinely democratic society. papers on Richard Rorty’s philosophy. Pragmatism again became a significant philosophical approach to human These principles were taken seriously by neopragmatist life in the second half of the 20th century, and the philosophers, first of all by Richard Rorty, who also reason for this was primarily the influence of Rorty’s emphasized the differences between the old and the neopragmatism. new pragmatists. The new pragmatism, he wrote in his book Philosophy and Social Hope, „differs from the old in If we look at pragmatism first in general, we can claim just two respects, only one of which is of much interest that the representatives of traditional pragmatism had to people who are not philosophy professors. The first is already transcended the narrow interpretation of the that we new pragmatists talk about language instead of principle of utility. Of the main representatives of this experience, or mind, or consciousness, as the old philosophical movement we should mention three. pragmatists did. The second respect is that we have all Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), the founder of read Kuhn, Hanson, Toulmin and Feyerabend, and have pragmatism, was an excellent logician. William James thereby become suspicious of the term ’scientific (1842-1910), who is the brother of the world famous method’. New pragmatists wish that Dewey, Sidney writer Henry James, traveled to Europe as a child, and Hook and Ernest Nagel had not insisted on using this later visited Europe frequently, acquiring in this way a term as a catchphrase, since we are unable to provide nearly perfect understanding of European culture. anything distinctive for it to denote.” (PSH 95) William was enrolled in fine schools and had gifted tutors, and he later taught psychology and philosophy at The obvious reason for these differences is that Rorty Harvard. Last but not least, John Dewey (1859-1952) knew European culture and philosophy as well as wrote not only several important books and articles American pragmatism and the analytic tradition. He was about nearly every important question of contemporary familiar not only with the philosophical epoch from Plato philosophy in his almost a century long life, but he also to Hegel, but he also wrote several papers about the took part in the life of his communities as teacher, social leading critic, and political activist. Heidegger, Gadamer) and about recent developments in 20th Continental century philosophy: philosophers Habermas, (Wittgenstein, Foucault and What is the leading idea of pragmatism that is still alive Derrida. With respect to intellectual history and today? What is worth renewing according to the main ideology, from among the three historically available 5 I N T R O D U C T I O N : A N A M E R I C A N L E F T I S T P A T R I O T Alexander Kremer possibilities of conservativism, socialism, and liberalism, „Born on October 4, 1931 to James Rorty and Winifred Rorty chose a liberalism that was forged first of all by Raushenbush, Richard McKay Rorty was an only child. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill. That is why he „Bucko,” as his parents affectionately called him, was modified slightly Dewey’s aim and strived to sketch a intellectually precocious from the start, with a clear gift utopia of a liberal democracy in his 1989 book, for the written word. He wrote a play about the Contingency, Irony and Solidarity: „One of my aims in coronation of Edward, Prince of Wales, at age 6. At 7 he this book is to suggest the possibility of a liberal utopia: composed a letter to the Harvard College Observatory one in which ironism, in the relevant sense, is universal. inquiring about the possibility of his becoming an A postmetaphysical culture seems to me no more astronomer, and at 8 penned a note of congratulations impossible than a postreligious one, and equally to the new Dalai Lama, accompanied by a present, for „a desirable.” (CIS xv-xvi) fellow eight-year old who had made good”.” (The Rorty Reader 4) Rorty enrolled at age 15 in the University of Who was Richard McKay Rorty in the mirror of „facts”? Chicago, where he later earned his BA (1949) and his MA Perhaps Chrsitopher J. Voparil’s „General Introduction” (1952) degree in philosophy. After his years at Chicago has summarized the essential features of Rorty’s oeuvre he studied philosophy at Yale University and earned his and life in the best way: „Whether or not one shares PhD degree in 1956. In 1957-1958 he served in the army, Harold Bloom’s assessment of Richard Rorty as the most after which he began to teach at Wellesly College (1958- interesting philosopher in the world, that he was for a 1961), from where he moved to Princeton University, time „the most-talked about philosopher” is hard to which was one of the citadels of analytic philosophy. dispute. Catapulted to the intellectual heights by the Rorty lived for twenty-one years in Princeton, where he 1979 publication of his Philosophy and the Mirror of taught primarily analytic philosophy, and then he left Nature – recently called „the most widely discussed Princeton for philosophical and private reasons. philosophy book of the second half of the twentieth „Although there were other contributing factors behind century” – Rorty’s influence transcends the walls of his decision to leave Princeton University in 1982 after discipline and culture. Books of his have been translated two decades, he would not hold a post in a philosophy into over twenty languages and his ideas debated in department again for the rest of his life.” (The Rorty leading journals in fields as diverse as political theory, Reader 2) His pragmatic turn ripened from the end of the sociology, legal studies, international relations, feminist 1960s (1967: The Linguistic Turn), and he published his studies, literary theory, business ethics, educational Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature in 1979 as the result theory, and of course philosophy. His work has spawned of this mind-changing process. The publication of his a body of secondary literature beyond the limits of a Mirror single human being to master and played a pivotal role philosophers, who viewed Rorty’s tome as a Judas-like in the revival of the tradition of American pragmatism. betrayal from within.” (The Rorty Reader 2) However, Following his death on June 8, 2007, Rorty was heralded the almost immediate popularity of his book „across the by a chorus of prominent intellectuals as „the most humanities quickly led to multiple job offers not long influential philosopher of the last three decades,” „the after its publication in 1979.” (The Rorty Reader 10) most famous philosopher in the world,” and nothing less Rorty became a Kenan professor of humanities at the than „a great philosopher, who, daringly swimming University of Virginia in 1983, and perhaps his most against the tide of modern analytic philosophy, single- productive sixteen years had begun. From 1998 to his handedly revived pragmatism, with great impact on a retirement he taught at the Department of Comparative variety of fields.””(The Rorty Reader 1) Literature at Stanford University in California, after book „infuriated then dominant analytic retiring from which he lived in Palo Alto as professor 6 I N T R O D U C T I O N : A N A M E R I C A N L E F T I S T P A T R I O T Alexander Kremer emeritus. Richard McKay Rorty passed away on June 8, views in its essence because he persistently confirmed 2007, at age 75. his politically saturated liberal ironist point of view. We can look at any field of his philosophy, from his concepts It is not easy to estimate clearly the significance of his of „world” and „truth,” through his views on art, oeuvre. „Rorty was a prolific writer who in nearly five morality, and science, to the questions of religion and decades of writing penned three books, two essay other matters, and sooner or later we recognize that his collections, four volumes of „philosophical papers,” an analyses of questions of contemporary importance form influential edited volume, and a co-authored book, plus an integral part of the whole of his philosophy until his scores of uncollected essays and reviews in academic death. The late Rorty assured the priority of liberal journals, as well as numerous pieces in newspapers, democracy over everything. (Cf. „The Priority of magazines, and popular publications. Rorty also was a Democracy to Philosophy”, in The Rorty Reader, Ch 13) prolific reader, with expansive interests and an uncanny Even his interpretation of philosophy as cultural politics ability to drop names not only from the entire serves this aim. (See the title and the content of his philosophical tradition, but of novelists, poets, literary posthumous book: Philosophy as Cultural Politics!) It critics, legal scholars, historians, and political theorists. A follows from all of this that Rorty did not want to create mainstay in contemporary intellectual debates for a special political philosophy, but the main motive of his several decades, he traveled to all corners of the globe philosophy is nevertheless political. Rorty gave us a non- and engaged with the leading thinkers of the day across systematic, but logical and consistently developed many fields. Widely recognized for his collegiality, Rorty interpretation of our world, with the help of his natural himself was a consummate collaborator, enthusiastically imagination and of the knowledge he acquired primarily promoting the work of others and always willing to through his bridge-building between post-Darwinian engage even his harshest critics in the hope of furthering American and post-Nietzschean European philosophy. ongoing debates.” (The Rorty Reader 3) Rorty himself was the embodiment of the contemporary intellectual Our issue, „The Roots of Rorty’s Philosophy,” seeks to life and a barometer of the most exciting intellectual trace the pathways of the influences that affected pocesses in several fields. Rorty’s intellectual development. It seemed to be a difficult task, however, because Rorty was not only a *** prolific writer, but – as we have already seen – also a prolific reader. That is why we unfortunately cannot map As we know the late Rorty refused the philosophical absolutely the roots and trails of influences on his single vision. However, in some sense he has created a philosophy. Thus we gave up the attempt to show the single vision. It is not a metaphysical single vision but a whole of these influences. Readers may note especially personal single vision. His neopragmatic philosophy is the absence of accounts of Rorty’s relations to Sartre, saturated namely by his political approach. Although he Gadamer and Derrida, and they are right, but we could has not created a distinctive political philosophy, his not find authors who had the necessary knowledge, time liberal utopia, his liberal democracy – in the sense of and enthusiasm to achieve this task. We offer fourteen freedom and social justice (cf. Achieving Our Country) – papers in a chronological order, except Richard always stood in the center of his philosophy and created Shusterman’s very personal introductory reminiscence a unity within his diverse thinking. Therefore, we can which assures the proper tone for our approach to claim that the late Rorty’s writings are united by one Rorty’s philosophy. Hopefully, „The Roots of Rorty’s central topic, which is his conception of a liberal utopia. Philosophy” will prove useful not only for colleagues, but The late Rorty’s neopragmatism is a coherent system of also for the students and the cultured public. 7 I N T R O D U C T I O N : A N A M E R I C A N L E F T I S T P A T R I O T Alexander Kremer References Rorty, R. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. (AOC) Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980. (PMN) Rorty, R. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. (CIS) 8 Rorty, R. Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge: University Press, 2007. (PCP) Rorty, R. Philosophy and Social Hope. Penguin Books, 1999. (PSH) The Linguistic Turn. (ed. by Richard Rorty) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. 2nd edition 1992. The Rorty Reader. (ed. by Christopher J. Voparil and Richard J. Bernstein) Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. THE CONTINGENCY OF RORTY’S SOURCES: of self seems to move from the rejection of a universal A POETIC EXAMPLE fixed essence of self to a contingency of mere chance Richard Shusterman and idiosyncrasy that skips over the possibility of selves (Florida Atlantic University, being composed of relatively fixed regularities that are richard.shusterman@gmail.com) to a large extent governed by physiological laws and social norms that while not being necessary or I immutable in regularities the that strict are sense deeply are nonetheless entrenched. This Contingency is a distinctively central theme of Richard idiosyncratic view of the self and its construction by Rorty’s philosophy but the roots of this theme can language has led Rorty not only to ignore the body and certainly be traced to earlier pragmatist thinkers. Peirce, the physiological dimension of self-construction and self- James, and Dewey expressed it by affirming that reality cultivation but also to neglect the value of the social is in the making and is thus governed by changing sciences for improving our self-understanding and our probabilities rather than absolutely fixed necessities, and means for self-flourishing. their views can in turn be traced to Darwin’s evolutionary theory whose twin engines were natural Having argued these points at length in a number of selection and variability through contingent mutations. earlier texts, I will instead very briefly consider here Contingency is a vague concept that admits of differing how Rorty’s affirmation of this radical notion of degrees or shades of meaning, depending on what it is contingency as mere chance or idiosyncratic accident being contrasted to. In perhaps the most basic sense, has sometimes impacted his writing through his use of what is contingent is contrasted with what is not sources. I will use only one striking example where this absolutely necessary, what could have been otherwise. use of contingency became vividly clear to me, drawing In that sense, one can say that all the events in our on a revealing personal exchange I had with Rorty probabilistic universe are contingent, since they are not concerning this use. governed by absolute, unchangeable laws that admit of personal interaction with Rorty and his methods of no possible exception or interruption or change. philosophical writing, I hope to illustrate an aspect of its 1 In sharing this episode of my distinctly pragmatic and Emersonian character that Another, closely related sense of contingent is what is might seem shocking in terms of conventional notions of not essential or necessary for a given thing to be what it scholarly writing and philosophical interpretation. is; it may be essential for a human being to have blood or linguistic competence but it is contingent as to which This personal revelation of an incident relating to Rorty’s blood type or language the person speaks, just as it is creative process should be prefaced by confirming once contingent what gender or race or birthday or education again my great respect for his achievement, even though the person has. I often depart from his specific views. Had I not met In Aristotelian language these non- essential features were described as accidents rather than essences, so the notion of contingency has long been associated with the accidental; and since the notion of accidental also includes a sense of being not only not necessary but also unexpected or coincidental or atypical, contingency also includes a sense of being mere chance or idiosyncratic happenstance, something like the whim of fortune. Rorty’s account of contingency 1 See, for example, Richard Shusterman, Pragmatist Aesthetics: Living Beauty, Rethinking Art (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992); Practicing Philosophy: Pragmatism and the Philosophical Life (New York: Routlege, 1997), “Pragmatism and Textual Politics: From Rortian Textualism to Somaesthetics.” New Literary History 41.1 (2010), 69-94. Rorty’s most explicit and vehement response to my critique can be found in Richard Rorty, “Response to Richard Shusterman,” in Matthew Festenstein and Simon Thompson (eds.), Richard Rorty: Critical Dialogues (Cambridge: Polity Press), 153-157. T H E C O N T I N G E N C Y O F R O R T Y ’ S S O U R C E S : A P O E T I C E X A M P L E Richard Shusterman Rorty, I would have never become an American design not philosophy) wondered why I should be so pragmatist such critical when I admired him so much, indeed admired unconventional topics as rap and somaesthetics (even him so much more than other contemporaries to whom I though Rorty disdained them both). I would have was kinder in print. I explained, of course, that remained the conventional, Oxford-trained, Israeli philosophers celebrate through critique and that one analytic philosopher that Rorty met in Beer-Sheva in needs to articulate and defend one’s differences from 1984, quite contingently, while he was on a brief lecture one’s philosophical exemplars and heroes in order to tour in Israel. enable one’s own views to be recognized as a legitimate philosopher who wrote on contribution to philosophy’s conversation rather than When I first met him I knew very little about pragmatism just an exercise in intellectual mimicry (even if such but shared my analytic mentors’ disdain for what we mimicry is in some sense unavoidable and is often an regarded as its mushy way of thinking. Rorty soon essential, constructive part of finding one’s voice). But convinced me, through conversation, correspondence, gradually such justifications lost their hold on me, and I and his exemplary new writings, that the American lost my taste for criticizing Rorty, especially since so pragmatist tradition (and especially John Dewey) had a much philosophical criticism of him seemed to me petty great deal to offer a philosopher like me who was and unproductive. especially interested in aesthetics, the arts, and culture. I was surprised that a famous American philosopher like Too often Rorty’s own views and interpretations have Rorty would pay so much attention to an unknown been rejected or demonized because he was very free in young lecturer in peripheral Israel. But, as I eventually his interpretation of the thinkers he used to formulate learned, I was not at all exceptional in receiving such and advance his ideas. Though he was incredibly sharp kindness. It was characteristic of Rorty’s open-minded and making fine-grained analytic distinctions, Rorty was largesse to notice and help academics like me who primarily interested in big ideas, and he did not worry worked in the margins (that is, outside the power about details. I now turn to the personal exchange that centers of the Anglo-American philosophical world), illustrates this point, just as it illustrates his commitment people that he came to know by the mere contingency to contingency and to interpreting texts by the lights of of meeting them on one occasion and finding some his own philosophical agenda. common interest that he thought worth pursuing in correspondence, long before there was the ease of II email. In his major pragmatist monograph Contingency, Irony, Within a few years, through his inspiration and and Solidarity, Rorty begins his crucial chapter on “The encouragement, I moved to the United States (my contingency of selfhood” by quoting a short passage of country of birth) and established myself as an American poetry from Philip Larkin. The chapter starts as follows: pragmatist philosopher. Because so much of my philosophical work was indebted to Rorty, so much of it was also polemically engaged with determining and justifying my characteristic differences from generosity, Rorty his views. With remained very supportive of my work despite my frequently sharp criticism. He almost never took occasion to respond to such criticism in print. My wife (whose field was fashion 10 As I was starting to write on the topic of this chapter, I came across a poem by Philip Larkin which helped me pin down what I wanted to say. Here is the last part of it: And once you have walked the length of your mind, what You command is as clear as a lading-list Anything else must not, for you, be thought To exist. T H E C O N T I N G E N C Y O F R O R T Y ’ S S O U R C E S : A P O E T I C E X A M P L E Richard Shusterman And what's the profit? Only that, in time We half-identify the blind impress All our behaving bear, may trace it home. But to confess, On that green evening when our death begins, Just what it was, is hardly satisfying, Since it applied only to one man once, 2 And that man dying. poem I quoted there seemed to be a punctuation mark missing. It was the close of the line ending in “ladinglist”, and, grammatically, it could have been either a comma or a period. I was asked to supply the missing punctuation mark, but when I consulted Rorty’s text I found that I had copied it exactly; namely, that there was no punctuation mark at the end of that line in Rorty then interprets this passage to make his case for Rorty’s own citation of the poem. So I naturally thought pragmatically construing the philosophical quest for self- of turning to the original Larkin poem. knowledge in terms of the more poetic quest for original self-creation. Rorty pragmatic But here I ran into a problem. Which poem was it? reconstruction as a move away from the Kantian project Rorty’s book supplied no reference or explanatory note of defining oneself (and living one’s life) in terms of a to indicate the poem’s title, or its first line, or even the universal human essence and instead adopting the title of the collection in which it was found. Since Larkin Nietzschean project of stylizing oneself as a distinctive had a very large corpus and no digital search engines (unique, moreover were then available, I thought I would simply phone Dick follows Harold Bloom in describing this project as that of Rorty and ask him from which Larkin poem he took the the strong poet, someone who strives to “become an lines on which he based his chapter. When I posed my individual in the strong sense in which the genius is a question, Rorty chuckled teasingly and replied that he paradox of individuality” (CIS 24), someone who turns hadn’t the faintest idea of the poem’s title and that he in her contingent idiosyncrasy into a distinctive life as a fact did not take the lines from a Larkin book, since he work of art. Rorty then tries to combine the distinctive, was not a real reader of Larkin. My shock must have individualist self-stylization of the strong poet with the been audible, for Rorty continued by explaining that he ever curious, ever changing self-fashioning of the liberal got those lines from a newspaper obituary on Larkin that ironist who is skeptical that any vocabulary that she he just happened to read when he was visiting England learns, uses, or develops is finally definitive and to give a few lectures, coincidentally at the time of irreplaceable. Larkin’s death. In short, Rorty simply copied the lines idiosyncratic) describes individual. this Rorty from the newspaper and incorporated them as the In Pragmatist Aesthetics I critically analyzed Rorty’s ideas foundation of his chapter on the self, never bothering to of self-creation, self-enrichment, and self-creation in check the accuracy of the lines or investigate their role in order to develop my own pragmatist view of ethics as an the larger contexts of the entire poem and Larkin’s wider art of living, I tried to show the tensions between the corpus. liberal ironist and the strong poet and I contested Rorty’s preoccupation with language, his insistence that the My disappointment in not having my question answered body did not matter. But in order to analyze Rorty’s was largely compensated by this revelation of how argument that was generated by Larkin’s poem, I also seriously Rorty took his philosophy of contingency not had to quote most of the poetic passage he used. When only in theory but also most boldly and unabashedly in my book was in production with Basil Blackwell in 1991, his writing practice. Though baffled and frustrated by his the copyeditor told me that in one of the lines of Larkin’s ignorance of the Larkin source, I consoled myself that this was the fault of his text not of mine, and eager to 2 Richard Rorty, Contingeny, Irony, and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 23; hereafter CIS. complete my correcting of page-proofs, I simply kept the matter to myself, while discretely adding (on the basis of 11 T H E C O N T I N G E N C Y O F R O R T Y ’ S S O U R C E S : A P O E T I C E X A M P L E Richard Shusterman my own sense of poetic punctuation) a period to end the are legion, and they are precisely the kind of criticisms line in question (on page 248 of Pragmatist Aesthetics). that miss the point of Rorty’s hermeneutics. His method of interpreting was that of the Bloomian strong reader Now, with the aid of Google and through the stimulation who uses the text to say what he wants to say, who is of Pragmatism Today’s invitation to write on Rorty, I willing to read the text against itself and against its have finally revisited the question of these lines and can traditional and conventional interpretations. Rorty had offer some factual information for Rorty scholarship. an Emersonian impulse to see and write things his own First, the title of the Larkin poem is “Continuing to Live” way, to be a non-conformist, to follow his whim in and its full twenty lines (divided into five quatrains) goes seeking and articulating insights, and then to use his as follows. enviable powers of prose to convince his readers to forget conventional scholarship in the excitement of Continuing to live -- that is, repeat A habit formed to get necessaries -Is nearly always losing, or going without. It varies. exploring new ways of thinking, a fresh relationship to the text or issue at hand. With respect to Larkin, Rorty indeed recognizes that the This loss of interest, hair, and enterprise -Ah, if the game were poker, yes, You might discard them, draw a full house! But it's chess. And once you have walked the length of your mind, what You command is clear as a lading-list. Anything else must not, for you, be thought To exist. And what's the profit? only that, in time, We half-identify the blind impress All our behavings bear, may trace it home. But to confess, poet’s explicit argument in the poem seems in opposition to what Rorty asserts is the true voice of poetry – the celebration of idiosyncrasy as the genius of individuality. “Larkin is affecting to despise his own vocation on the ground that to succeed in it would merely be to have put down on paper something which ‘applied only to one man once / And that one dying.’” Rorty thinks Larkin is only “affecting” dissatisfaction because no “poet could seriously think trivial his own success in tracing home the blind impress borne by all his behavings - all his previous poems,” because since the Romantics “no poet has seriously thought of idiosyncrasy as an objection” (CIS 24). In short Rorty reads Larkin as “suggesting that unless one finds On that green evening when our death begins, Just what it was, is hardly satisfying, Since it applied only to one man once, And that one dying. something common to all men at all times, not just to one man once, one cannot die satisfied.” Larkin's poem, Rorty concludes, “owes its interest and its strength to this reminder of the quarrel between poetry and After twenty-years of ignorance, I learned I was right to add the period after “lading-list” that Rorty’s citation mistakenly omitted. I was also not surprised to learn that his citation wrongly inserted an extra “as” in that same philosophy, the tension between an effort to achieve self-creation by the recognition of contingency and an effort to achieve universality by the transcendence of contingency” (CIS 25). line, making it somewhat more discursive and prosaic than Larkin intended. I gladly provide these facts about Larkin’s poem to set the record straight. But my purpose is not to condemn Rorty for his insouciant infidelity to his sources. Such critiques (with respect to his interpretation of Dewey, Sellars, Davidson, and others) 12 Without denying the interest and ingenuity of Rorty’s reading, we should recall that there are in fact postRomantic poets (such as T.S. Eliot) who truly critique (rather than merely affect the critique of) the romantic T H E C O N T I N G E N C Y O F R O R T Y ’ S S O U R C E S : A P O E T I C E X A M P L E Richard Shusterman 3 celebration of idiosyncrasy. Likewise, if we look at the whole of Larkin’s poem, we see that its dissatisfaction is directed not so much at the person’s individuality but rather at the person’s mortality, which is not a contingent matter, but rather a universal condition that Larkin (like most men) finds unhappy or disturbing. Indeed, besides (if not beneath) the blind impress of the individual’s idiosyncratic contingencies, there looms a cluster of general human conditions that are themselves far from satisfying: the repeated need to procure the “necessaries” that we as embodied creatures continuously need to continue living, the fact that habits that are necessary for living also structure (and limit) much of our behavior (even its creative and idiosyncratic dimensions), and that our lives (after a certain age) are essentially a matter of losing (“interest, hair, enterprise,” energy, strength, memory) rather than expressing only continued, self-cultivating growth, so that in continuing to live we are continually also moving toward death – the great, universal leveler. This theme of individual mortality (at once particularly personal and essential to the entire human race) is common to art and philosophy, and it presents a proper ending for this paper and an occasion to declare again my deep regret that Rorty could not continue to live and provoke us with his own eclectic idiosyncrasies and stimulating romantic interpretations. 3 On Eliot’s critique of romanticism and its celebration of radical individuality, see Richard Shusterman, T.S. Eliot and the Philosophy of Criticism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988). 13 RORTY, HEGEL AND RORTY’S HEGEL twentieth century, has always been suspicious of Hegel Tom Rockmore and only rarely taken his position seriously. (Duquesne University, rockmore@duq.edu) Rorty was, at least originally, an analytic philosopher. Twentieth century Western philosophy includes four main tendencies: Marxism, which was invented by For a brief shining moment, Richard Rorty dominated Engels; American pragmatism, which builds on Peirce; the Western philosophical scene. He was apparently continental philosophy, which continues the form of everywhere at once, more than a match for his famous phenomenology invented by Husserl and continued by contemporaries Derrida and Habermas, a presence his many followers, including Heidegger; and finally whose every word seemed to resonate, someone who analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy was invented by placed two philosophers at the University of Cambridge, Russell himself outside philosophy as ordinarily conceived, which did not diminish but only redoubled his and Moore, who were later joined by Wittgenstein. influence on the philosophical debate. Russell, who came to philosophy from mathematics, and Rorty left the conceptual stage at the height of his Moore, who studied classics, had very different influence. It remains to see what will remain of his work backgrounds in the future, and to determine whether he represents conceptions of analytic philosophy. Russell distrusted more than a passing phase in the ongoing debate or intuition on which Moore often relied in favoring the someone whose influence in the discussion will remain view of the ordinary individual. One thing they had in constant or even increase. One cannot say the same for common was an early interest in idealism, which they Hegel, who, although this is controversial, is arguably both later abandoned in turning against it. Both Moore one of the very few true philosophical giants. Though and Russell wrote dissertations on Kant, Moore on Hegel also departed the scene at the height of his fame, Kantian ethics and Russell on Kant’s theory of since his death from cholera in Berlin in 1831 his mathematics. Initially at least both seem to have reputation and influence have not diminished but considered themselves as idealists. This quickly changed. continued to grow. Hegel, who has always been a Their shared rejection of idealism was one of the controversial but influential figure, is arguably the most founding acts of analytic philosophy. This was set out in influential post-Kantian German idealist, directly and a famous article, “Refutation of Idealism,” written by indirectly, especially through his impact on Marx, one of Moore. In the second edition of the Critique of Pure the most influential modern philosophers. Reason, Kant, who thought he was misinterpreted, and not surprisingly very different 1 inserted a short section of a page and a half to indicate Rorty, of course, had no pretentions to be a Hegel inner thoughts proved the existence of the external scholar. Yet a glance at Rorty’s writings will show that world. Moore, who found Kant’s view unsatisfactory, Hegel is a constant point of reference in Rorty’s texts argued that all idealists of whatever stripe, and over many years. Hegel thus functions as one of the presumably Kant as well, share a rejection of the reality numerous thinkers in reference to whom Rorty defines of the external world. This led to an analytic anathema his own philosophical view. This is in itself surprising against idealism that has never been lifted. Rorty is one since Rorty came to philosophical attention within the of the analytic instigators of an ongoing analytic (re)turn broader Anglo-American analytic tradition, which, since to Hegel by McDowell, Brandon and a few others. Yet analytic philosophy emerged at the beginning of the 1 See G. E. Moore, “The Refutation of Idealism,” Mind 12 (1903) 433-53. R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore significantly none of the analytic thinkers now turning to point, Hegel emerged in Rorty’s texts as a minor but Hegel has so far considered Hegel in respect to idealism. ongoing philosophical point of reference that remains throughout all his later writing. In fact, Hegel was Rorty was never simply a follower, concerned to observe apparently an early, even a decisive early interest in convention, even in his earliest philosophical writings. Rorty’s intellectual development. In an autobiographical He always had broad philosophical interests well outside piece called “Trotsky and the Wild Orchids” (1992), Rorty the mainstream of analytic philosophy. He diverged from wrote the following retrospective passage, which, since the vast majority of analytic thinkers in taking Hegel, a it indicates Rorty’s own understanding of the role Hegel clearly non-analytic thinker, seriously. With such played in his intellectual development, deserves to be prominent exceptions W. Sellars, who taught Hegel over cited at length : 2 many years at the University of Pittsburgh, and who “I have spent 40 years looking for a coherent and convincing way of formulating my worries about what, if anything, philosophy is good for. My starting point was the discovery of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit, a book which I read as saying: granted that philosophy is just a matter of out-redescribing the last philosopher, the cunning of reason can make use even of this sort of competition. It can use it to weave the conceptual fabric of a freer, better, more just society. If philosophy can be, at best, only what Hegel called 'its time held in thought', still, that might be enough. For by thus holding one's time, one might do what Marx wanted done - change the world. So even if there were no such thing as 'understanding the world' in the Platonic sense an understanding from a position outside of time and history - perhaps there was still a social use for my talents, and for the study of philosophy. described his own most important contribution to analytic philosophy of mind as Hegelian meditations, and Charles Taylor who explicated Hegel, few analytic thinkers were willing to devote more than the most passing attention to Hegel. Hegel, “Trotsky and the Wild Orchids” Rorty emerged as a promising analytic philosopher who quickly reacted against mainstream analytic philosophy in criticizing its epistemological aspirations. Hegel was simply absent in The Linguistic Turn (1967), which initially brought Rorty to prominence. In this collection, For quite a while after I read Hegel, I thought that the two greatest achievements of the species to which I belonged were The Phenomenology of Spirit and Remembrance of Things Past (the book which took the place of the wild orchids once I left Flatbrookville for Chicago). Proust's ability to weave intellectual and social snobbery together with the hawthorns around Combray, his grandmother's selfless love, Odette's orchidaceous embraces of Swann and Jupien's [sic] of Charlus, and with everything else he encountered - to give each of these its due without feeling the need to bundle them together with die help of a religious faith or a philosophical theory - seemed to me as astonishing as Hegel's ability to throw himself successively into empiricism, Greek tragedy, Stoicism, Christianity and Newtonian physics, and to emerge from each, ready and eager for something completely different. It was the cheerful commitment to irreducible temporality which Hegel and Proust shared - the specifically anti-Platonic element in their work - that seemed so wonderful. They both seemed able to weave Rorty was concerned with the nature and viability of analytic philosophy. His focus here was, as his subtitle indicated, on “Recent Essays in Analytic Philosophy.” In the important Introduction, Rorty argued in detail that analytic attention to language identified analytic philosophy as one of the great periods in the entire tradition but that efforts to turn it into a science would fail. The extensive bibliography accompanying the volume pointed to many analytic as well as some nonanalytic writers, such as Dewey and Heidegger, but Hegel was wholly absent. Rorty later developed his attention to figures outside any normal understanding of analytic philosophy even as he widened his effort to work out a viable position. In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979), Rorty turned away from the relation of language to the world while focusing on Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Dewey. At this 2 “Trotsky and the Wild Orchids,” in Richard Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, Penguin, 1999, p. 11. 15 R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore everything they encountered into a narrative without asking that that narrative have a moral, and without asking how that narrative would appear under the aspect of eternity. About 20 years or so after I decided that the young Hegel's willingness to stop trying for eternity, and just be the child of his time, was [12] the appropriate response to disillusionment with Plato, I found myself being led back to Dewey. Dewey now seemed to me a philosopher who had learned all that Hegel had to teach about how to eschew certainty and eternity, while immunizing himself against pantheism by taking Darwin seriously. This rediscovery of Dewey coincided with my first encounter with Derrida (which I owe to Jonathan Arac, my colleague at Princeton). Derrida led me back to Heidegger, and I was struck by the resemblances between Dewey's, Wittgenstein's and Heidegger's criticisms of Cartesianism. Suddenly things began to come together. I thought I saw a way to blend a criticism of the Cartesian tradition with the quasi-Hegelian historicism of Michel Foucault, lan Hacking and Alasdair Maclntyre. I thought that I could fit all these into a quasiHeideggerian story about the tensions within Platonism.” This passage is extremely interesting and in some ways at odds with the picture of Rorty’s philosophical implicitly defends an anti or at least a non-Marxist perspective in implying Marx’s goal could be reached on Hegelian grounds. The implication is that despite what Engels and other Marxists thought, one does not have to leave philosophy to realize it since philosophy can reach its goals within philosophy. Rorty, who here characterizes philosophy as consisting in a series of alternative descriptions of the world, suggests Marx’s stated goal of changing the world can perhaps be achieved, not by grasping the world in itself, which no one can do and which amounts to Platonism, hence not through defending a form of metaphysical realism, but by grasping it philosophically within time and history. I take Rorty to be pointing to a historicist approach to knowledge clearly incompatible with the examination of the so-called linguistic turn in the collection of that name, hence incompatible with a centrally linguistic conception of philosophy. The problem is assuredly not the semantic problem of how words hook onto things, but rather how to comprehend the world when like all human beings one is situated within the historical flux. motivations that results merely from reading The Linguistic Turn. Rorty, like many others, famously like Marx, announces that early on he was concerned not merely to do philosophy but with what philosophy amounts to. He did not want merely to be another philosopher whose main contribution lies in either ignoring or even in reinforcing the status quo but rather someone who had a hand in changing things for the better. Philosophy here takes on a clear social role wholly unrelated to transforming philosophy into a science unless scientific philosophy is, as Kant thinks, intrinsically useful to all human beings. But that argument remains to be made and Rorty clearly is not making it here. Yet there is an obvious tension here between temporality and history or historicity, which surfaces in Rorty’s reference to Hegel and Proust in the same breath. Rorty seems very oddly to regard them as doing about the same thing. Yet a reading of Proust and Hegel as sharing similar concerns apparently conflates time and history. Proust’s aim is to recover what he calls lost time (du temps perdu), which is preserved in memory that can, through an appropriate stimulus, such as the famous incident of the madeleine, be made conscious. There is an analogy between Proust’s concern to revive our memories of what has taken place, but been forgotten, and Freud’s stress on the cathartic recovery of the repressed events of early childhood. Hegel’s interest, Marxism typically suggests that in virtue of their idealism, which seems to amount to the fact that they, like everyone else, depend on modern industrial capitalism, philosophers succumb to ideology that prevents them from grasping the world, which, on the contrary, Marx correctly comprehends. Rorty here 16 on the contrary, lies in calling attention to the historical element in conceptual claims, which depend on the historical moment in which they occur. If Hegel is right, we cannot go beyond the historical moment in which we are always situated. R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore Rorty, who apparently overlooks this crucial distinction, historical form of cognition, and the historical moment. draws attention to the anti-Platonic character of Hegel’s According to Hegel, philosophy, which arises only post suggestion that we necessarily think out of our historical facto, is a centrally important way of understanding moment. This claim requires some discussion. We do not what occurs, in Hegel’s language its moment captured in know and cannot now determine Plato’s view, if he had thought. For Hegel, the retrospective capacity to one. According to the theory of forms, which is routinely understand what has happened is a key ingredient in ascribed to him, Plato can be understood to believe, like making possible a future based on that understanding. In Parmenides, that if there is knowledge, it must consist in other words, philosophy is socially useful in promoting a grasp of what, according to the theory of forms, can be the realization of ideas through the self-understanding described as mind-independent reality. In other words, arrived at in comprehending the historical moment. and once again if and only if there is knowledge, there is a mind-independent reality that, under appropriate Rorty, who is an epistemological skeptic, has to resolve conditions, on grounds of nature and nurture, at least the problem of how to attribute a social role to some talented individuals called philosophers can be philosophy, a role that cannot be based on its cognitive said to grasp. function, since it has none. His rejection of a historical form of cognition, which follows from his rejection of This general view of philosophy as social relevant is epistemology in general, leads him toward a novel broadly Hegelian. Rorty shares with Hegel and many conception of pragmatism. Pragmatism in all its forms is others a concern with what philosophy amounts to from a-historical. This is a major difference between classical a social perspective. This concern, with the exception of pragmatism, which reacts to Kant, and post-Kantian Schelling, runs throughout all the great German idealists German idealism, which also reacts to Kant in moving from Kant through Hegel and, if Marx is an idealist, toward a historical reinterpretation of the critical continues in Marx as well. Yet Rorty’s view of philosophy. Pragmatism, which is anti-foundationalist, philosophical social relevance seems thoroughly un- can be understood as an effort to continue the Hegelian. Thus, although he thinks of Hegel as indicating epistemological debate after the turn away from how philosophy can be socially relevant, he does not Cartesian foundationalism. Peirce, for instance, famously seem the favors an understanding of reality as what science philosophical mechanism through which philosophy arrives at in the long run. Rorty, who is opposed to makes its social contribution. Marx, of course, was knowledge claims in general, turns away from Peirce, skeptical of Hegel’s view of philosophy as contributing to arguably the central figure on any of the usual society. Early on, he argued that we should turn from approaches to pragmatism. The result is an idiosyncratic philosophy to revolution. Later on, he thought that reading of pragmatism beginning in James and modern liberal capitalism will through its inner dialectic continuing in Dewey, whom Rorty presents as the truth transform itself into something he called communism, of both German idealism and Hegel in particular, as well but which has only the name in common with twentieth as the high point of pragmatism. Thus he ends his century political systems that feature that name. autobiographical sketch, in which he calls attention to aware of Hegel’s understanding of the significance for his own philosophical approach of Hegel’s argument for the social utility of philosophy does Hegel and Proust in indicating that both pale before the not rely on leaving philosophy behind, or on the related importance of Dewey. Dewey, who famously declines an idea of philosophy as pointing beyond itself to an extra- interest in the problem of knowledge in general, favors a philosophical solution. It rather relies on a claim for the process of inquiry, whose appeal to Rorty lies in the fact relation between philosophy, which he understands as a that, instead of fruitless epistemological claims, Dewey 17 R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore offers a dream of a democratic community based not on closer still to a pragmatist like Dewey whom Rorty reads knowledge but rather on solidarity. According to Rorty, as reticent to engage in theory of knowledge. “The democratic community of Dewey’s dreams … is a community in which nobody everybody thinks that it is In giving up Hegel and Proust for Dewey, Rorty turns human solidarity, rather than knowledge of something away from the social function of philosophy, or at least 3 not merely human, that really matters.” Rorty goes on demotes it to a secondary theme. His central concern to claim that Dewey’s approximation to “a fully now becomes the ability of philosophy to carry out its democratic, fully secular community” is “the greatest epistemological program, which was central in The achievements of our species” (sic), and that in Linguistic Turn, and which is further developed in comparison “Hegel’s and Proust’s book seem optional, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Already in the 4 orchidaceous extras.” His preference for democracy, former book, Rorty indicates toward the end of the which accords well with the direction of Dewey’s Introduction, that the Cartesian spectator view leads to a thought, does not, however, solve the problem of how series of difficulties that disappear in rejecting the view to justify the social utility of philosophy, which, in virtue of knowledge as “the presentation of something of “immediately given” to the mind, where the mind is Rorty’s epistemological skepticism, remains conceived of as a sort of immaterial eye,” and where unresolved. “immediately” means, at a minimum, “without the In his later writings, Rorty continued to feature Hegel, mediation of language.” 5 but, perhaps in virtue of his own anti-epistemological stance, only as a minor strand in a position that turns on Hegel and Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature the rejection of claims to know. Even in the autobiographical context, Rorty seems to imply Hegel is Rorty develops his critique of epistemology in detail in more important to him personally than he is finally Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, his most important willing to admit. Here the difference between idealism book. The title of this book points beyond the familiar and pragmatism comes into play. An important Cartesian spectator view to a particular epistemological difference between Kant and Hegel lies in the a-historical thesis associated more narrowly with F. Bacon, Engels, form of idealism Kant features that, by the time it gets to Lenin, the early Wittgenstein and others, and which in Hegel, has become thoroughly historical. Pragmatism of Marxism is known as the reflection theory of knowledge. all kinds is not unfriendly toward but also not interested There is a difference between the spectator view and in history as such. None of the classical American the reflection theory of knowledge. The spectator view, pragmatists of which precedes Descartes, is at least as old as the philosophy. Rorty, who is an epistemological skeptic, is, Platonic conception that on grounds of nature and unlike Hegel defending a historical view of knowledge. nurture some among us known as philosophers can He is rather interested in defending the paradoxical intuit invisible mind-independent reality. The spectator view, familiar in the debate at least since Socrates, that view attributed to Descartes, and adopted by many we know there is no knowledge. This explains the fact others, takes many forms. One form is the thesis that in that even in the autobiographical sketch, where he knowing the mind must, as the title of Rorty’s book seems close, or closest to Hegel, or at least close to a suggests, reflect the way the world is, or act as the form of Hegelianism that seems to promise the mirror of nature. In the famous account of the divided features a historical conception realization of social change through philosophy, he is 5 3 Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, p. 20. 4 Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, p. 20. 18 Richard Rorty, The Linguistic Turn: Recent Essays in Philosophical Method, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, p. 39n. R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore line in the Republic, Plato asserts that if the line is credits the latter with offering a naturalized version of divided into visible and invisible parts, the visible Hegel’s vision of history. In the Mirror book, the main consists of images, including reflections situated in the reference to Hegel is as a counterweight to Kant and the imagination, which are images of animals, plants and return to Kantian theory of knowledge after Hegel. In 6 8 other things. In the spectator theory of knowledge, this regard, Rorty makes two points: first, it was only invisible reality gives way to visible nature that, in the after Hegelianism receded that epistemology as we now reflection theory of knowledge, one knows by reflecting know it emerged; and, second, it became apparent after it. Hegel that we cannot ground claims to know in anything like world-spirit but must justify claims for objectivity. 9 Rorty’s aim in this book seems to be to refute the Both these points are controversial. Although Rorty Cartesian spectator view in the form of the reflection takes a softer line on the linguistic turn in this volume, theory of knowledge and, hence, epistemology in all its he seems still to overestimate the importance of words forms. In the Introduction to The Linguistic Turn, Rorty in linking the rise of epistemology to the use of presents attention to language as centrally important, “epistemology” and related terms (e. g. Epistemologie, but less so than the critique of the spectator view. The Erkenntnistheorie, Vernunftkritik, etc.) by Zeller and refutation of the spectator view is the central task of the other neo-Kantians. If Kant invented theory of Mirror book. The main point, which is continuous with knowledge worthy of the name, then it originated but different from the view adumbrated in the around the time of the Critique of Pure Reason. If not, autobiographical essay, is that philosophy has no then, as many think, it arguably goes back to early Greek 7 philosophy and merely receives an important make over Rorty signals this inference in the last sentence of the in at the time of Kant. Second, in suggesting that Hegel book the wants to ground all the disciplines on world-spirit Rorty, conversation of the West without insisting on a specific who never discusses Hegel’s position, apparently relies place within it for the traditional problems of modern on philosophical gossip about it in attributing a view to philosophy. Yet this conclusion seems hasty, more than Hegel that is arguably in what one says about Hegel’s the argument can bear. If I am correct that the reflection writings but not in his texts. distinctive role to play since theory of knowledge fails. where he recommends continuing theory of knowledge is no more than a variation on the theme of the spectator theory, it follows that a “Dewey between Hegel and Darwin” refutation of the former does not necessarily count as a refutation of the latter. It follows that despite the In the Mirror book, Rorty contends that with evident interest of what Rorty says in this book, he fails Wittgenstein and Dewey that we should not think of to clinch the case he builds against the Cartesian knowledge as a problem for which we have a theory. If spectator view. the epistemological approach to philosophy is optional, then so is philosophy that focuses on it. In “Dewey The other problem is the modified role he now accords Between Hegel and Darwin,” Rorty returns to the to Hegel in this book. In the Mirror book, he interpretation of Dewey broached in the auto- supplements his earlier remarks Dewey with equally biographical sketch. In the sketch, Rorty depicted Dewey appreciative comments about Wittgenstein, Heidegger as offering a naturalized version of Hegelian historicism. and Dewey. As in the autobiographical piece, he again He now enriches that basic claim in focusing on the role 6 See Plato, Republic, 510A, translated by G. M. A. Grube, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992, p. 183. 7 See Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979, p. 394. 8 See Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, p. 5. See Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, pp. 233-235. 9 19 R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore of Darwin in the formulation of Dewey’s thought. Rorty All three claims are controversial. Rorty is right that now stresses Hegel’s historicism in downplaying his there is a close, but probably still not well- idealism. 10 Rorty takes it as a given that there are comprehended link between pragmatism and German different Hegels, or at least different ways of reading his idealism, and further between Dewey and Hegel. position accordingly as we emphasize one strand or American pragmatism is in part the product of a complex another. It never seems to occur to him, since there is no reaction to nineteenth century German idealism. Peirce direct interpretation of Hegel’s texts, that perhaps famously clamed to know Kant’s first Critique almost by Hegel’s idealism and his historicism are interrelated heart. He was initially unfavorable to Hegel, whom he through his constructivist approach to knowledge. If this later regarded as mainly differing from his own position is true, then it is not possible to hold onto the historicism through a different vocabulary. without adopting the idealism as well. much about Peirce or the German idealists. Dewey was 15 James never knew influenced by the St. Louis Hegelians as well as by Hegel Rorty is interested in finding out what can be defended in ways that we still do not completely understand. and what must be rejected in Dewey, whose pragmatism Through recent publications, we now know more than he depicts as the positive outcome of the German Rorty did about Dewey’s reading of Hegel. 16 idealist tradition. With this in mind, Rorty proposes an interpretation of Dewey’s relation to Hegel in which Rorty’s first claim refers to the relation of physics and Dewey is neither a panpsychist nor a radical empiricist. biology, Galileo and Darwin. Galileo’s successful Rorty follows Manfred Franks’ point that after Hegel application of mathematics to nature does not eliminate philosophers must give up the idea of a transhistorical purpose from physics, which is still featured by Newton. frame of reference lying beyond language, which in turn In the third Critique, it is known that Kant, who focuses allows a distinction between historicism, which denies on a teleological approach to nature, still dreams of a we can match up language to the world, and scientism, Newton of a blade of grass. It is further tendentious to or the claim that natural science is closer to the world claim that Darwin shows us how to naturalize Hegel. It than other activities. 11 Dewey’s contribution lies in needs to be shown that Hegel, a pre-Darwinian figure, is formulating a view of truth that does not rely on getting committed to a form of teleology that after Darwin is it right about the world based on a turn to Darwin in attributable to natural selection. It further needs to be merging the vocabulary of epistemology with that of shown that after Darwin a recognizable version of evolutionary biology. 12 In this respect, Rorty makes Hegel’s position can still be maintained. From an three key claims. First, Darwin finished the job begun by epistemological perspective, Hegel’s view of progress Galileo in eliminating purpose from nature; Second, consists in arriving at a better theory about what is given Darwin shows us how to naturalize Hegel in retaining a in experience. This might be paraphrased as a theory Hegelian account of progress while dispensing with the that does everything the preceding theory does plus at 13 claim that the real is the rational ; and, third, Dewey’s least one thing it should do but fails to do. position is “a genuine marriage of Darwin with a deabsolutized Hegel.” 14 Rorty’s second claim implies that Darwinism is incompatible with Hegelianism, which it supposedly 10 See “Dewey between Hegel and Darwin,” in Richard Rorty, Philosophical Papers 3: Truth and Progress, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 292. 11 See Rorty, Truth and Progress, pp. 293-294. 12 See Rorty, Truth and Progress, p. 299. 13 See Rorty, Truth and Progress, p. 300. 14 Rorty, Truth and Progress, p. 304. 20 15 See, for this argument, Tom Rockmore, “Hegel, Peirce and Knowledge,” Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 13, no. 3, 1999, pp. 166-184. 16 See John Dewey’s Philosophy of Spirit, with the 1897 Lecture on Hegel, edited by John R. Shook and James A. Good, New York: Fordham University Press, 2010. R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore corrects by advancing a theory of biological evolution in rethinking the problem of knowledge in historical terms. place of the development of spirit. Yet this is incorrect. Yet if as I believe none of the American pragmatists can Since the Hegelian conception of spirit cannot simply be be described as a historical thinker, in other words as reduced to nature, Hegel’s problems cannot be solved committed to some version of the view that cognitive on the level of modern biology. Rorty seems to believe claims depend on the historical context, then it is that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with Hegel’s incorrect to depict Dewey as naturalizing Hegelian position, and in particular with the view that the real is historicism. To put the point simply but not inaccurately: the rational. This inference is based on the relation a turn toward Darwin or science in general is not the between science and philosophy. After Darwin Hegel’s same thing as, nor a substitute for, a post-Kantian thesis that the real is the rational remains unaffected. historical account of knowledge. Hegel’s thesis points to a minimal condition for the intelligibility of our surroundings. The alternative is to Conclusion: Rorty, Hegel and Rorty’s Hegel give up the idea that we can know our surroundings and ourselves if they cannot be grasped through human The conclusion is obvious. Rorty, who does not seem to reason. In this respect, Hegel and Darwin are not know much about Hegel, uses the latter mainly as a foil, incompatible but comptatible. Darwinian evolutionary as a promissory note for what is left over after we deny theory, which can be depicted as a way of grasping the theory of knowledge understood as matching words up intrinsic rationality of experience, is committed to a form to things, our claims about the world to the mind- of the thesis that the real is the rational. independent world, or an approach that simply cannot justify its claims to objectivity. Rorty’s original objective Finally the third claim that Dewey’s position is a genuine as described in the autobiographical sketch lies in finding marriage of Darwin with a supposedly de-absolutized a reason to carry on philosophy, which seemed to be Hegel depends on interpretations of both Dewey and justified through Hegel and Proust, but could finally only Hegel that Rorty never proposes. This has been Rorty’s be tied to Dewey’s form of pragmatism. Yet his claim all along. The main difference between the way identification of Dewey’s theory as a naturalized form of Rorty depicts the relation of Dewey to Hegel in the Hegelian historicism is undermined by a basic unclarity autobiographical sketch and in the Mirror book, and the about the nature of historicism, hence Dewey’s relation way he depicts it here, is that Rorty now suggests that in to historicism and to Hegel. turning to Darwin Dewey discovers the non- metaphysical historicist Hegel. In replacing the Hegelian There is a lack of seriousness in Rorty’s claim that “The absolute by Darwinism, historicism by scientism, Rorty problem with Hegel and Darwin has always been that substitutes pragmatism for idealism. Yet this is Hegel seems to say that human civilization just couldn’t problematic since historicism cannot be understood casually be wiped out by a plague or a comet ….” Yet simply as a claim that we cannot match up a trans- the difficulty runs deeper than that, deeper than Rorty’s historical frame of reference with mind-independent deliberately playful tone. Rorty’s Hegel is a distant reality. Kant, an a-historical thinker, denies precisely this relative of the left-wing Hegelian interpretation, which point in the famous Copernican revolution. According to arose after his death in 1831. The right Hegelians Kant, we cannot claim to represent mind-independent thought Hegel was a kind of theologian, who privileged reality, which we uncover, discover, or reveal, since we the religious element, something the left Hegelians can only claim to know what we in some sense accepted as a correct reading of Hegel and criticized. But construct, product, or make. Hegel and other post- what if Hegel were not offering a theologically-centered 17 Kantian German idealists follow this Kantian insight in 17 See Rorty, Truth and Progress, p. 300. 21 R O R T Y , H E G E L A N D R O R T Y ’ S H E G E L Tom Rockmore theory at all, but rather a form of post-Kantian constructivism consisting in formulating, trying out and then reformulating successive theories, each attempting to go further than preceding theories about experience? In that case Hegel’s historicism and his idealism would be two sides of the same position, and, since they could not be simply dissevered, that is, since one could not have Hegelian historicism without Hegelian idealism, it could not be the case that like Marx Dewey gave up Hegel’s idealism in adopting his historicism. 18 Rorty fails to see, perhaps because he is an epistemological skeptic opposed to any theory of knowledge, that the interest of Hegel does not lie only in rejecting metaphysical realism. It also lies in an interesting form of epistemological constructivism without making any claim for a cognitive grasp of mindindependent reality as it is. If Dewey had been a historical thinker, and if he had taken the German idealist turn towards constructivism seriously, then Rorty could correctly have claimed that Dewey provides a naturalized form of Hegelian historicism. But since Dewey’s theory differs from Hegel’s, and since it cannot merely be understood as a further development of German idealism, I conclude that Rorty’s contention that Dewey provides a naturalized form of Hegelian historicism is wide of the mark. 18 See Rorty, Philosophy and Social Hope, p. 30: “If all this sounds vaguely reminiscent of Marx, that is because Marx and Dewey were steeped in Hegel, especially his idealism and because both rejected everything nonhistoricist in Hegel, especially his idealism.. Both kept only those parts of Hegel which could easily be reconciled with Darwin.” 22 RORTY AND NIETZSCHE contingency of his most central beliefs and desires. But Susana de Castro he was not a ‘liberal’ -- in fact, he was an ‘antiliberal’: 1 (Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro; You preachers of equality, the tyrant’s madness of impotence cries thus out of you for “equality” (…) I do not want to be mixed in with and mistaken for these preachers of equality. For thus justice speaks to me: “humans are not equal.” (Nietzsche, 2006, pp. 77-78) decastrosusana@terra.com.br) I see Nietzsche as the figure who did most to convince European intellectuals of the doctrines which were purveyed to Americans by James and Dewey. Getting straight to the point, as he sometimes abruptly ---- Richard Rorty does, Rorty says: “Nietzsche dislikes both his country and his century, so the Emersonian combination of selfreliance and patriotism found in James and Dewey is alien to him.” (1991, p. 2). His philosophical positions are Introduction in the extreme opposite of his fellow countryman, Kant. He sees no use of concepts like “knowledge in itself”, Rorty has never said straightforwardly that, like Dewey “thing-in-itself” (“the dogmatic idea of ‘things that have or James (1991a), Nietzsche were one of his heroes. But a constitution in themselves’ is one which one must in an autobiographical text, “Trotsky and the Wild break absolutely”) , or “the categories of reason” (“the Orchids”, he recognizes that he shares his philosophical expedience of a certain race and species”). With his views “with Nietzsche and Dewey” (1999, p.5). perspectivism Nietzsche abandoned any reliance on Nietzsche’s influence on his work is undeniable. Like philosophies such as Kant’s which see truth as Nietzsche: (i) Rorty is very critical about the sterile works disentangled from interests and needs. 2 3 of philosophers who following Plato think of philosophy as the search for the “really real” (2007a); (ii) he assigns 1. The place of Nietzsche in the history of philosophy novelist and poets a place in midst of philosophers according to Rorty (2008); (iii) he thinks we live in a post-philosophical culture where philosopher has no special “problems” to In writing about Richard Rorty’s philosophy it is solve but are all-purpose intellectuals ‘who offer a view unavoidable to mention the importance of the XX on pretty much anything’ (2008b); and, (iv) that science century’s “linguistic turn” for his work. Indeed the has no special access to the ‘really real’ (2008a). For both Wittgensteinian assumption that language is not a of them creativity and imagination have a central role in medium for expressing ideas but tools for dealing with our life. But unlike Nietzsche, for Rorty, democracy and the events in the world has a central role in his writings. Christianity are not signs of the West’s decadency. For But one should not underestimate the relevance of him, “one can detach the good Nietzsche – the critic of another important turn in the history of philosophy: the Platonism – from the bad Nietzsche, the one who had no “historicist turn” . As a matter of fact, this is for him the use for Christianity or democracy.” (2006, p. 93). decisive th 4 event in the history of contemporary Contrary to Nietzsche, the egalitarian ideals incarnated in a democracy do not represent for Rorty the triumph of the ‘slave morality’ but the hope of the continuing retreat of all sorts of present and future forms of cruelties. So, as he says in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Nietzsche was an ‘ironist’, one sufficiently historicist and nominalist not to be scared by the 1 A Liberal is someone for whom “cruelty is the worst thing they do” (CIS, p. 74). See also, CIS, p. xv. 2 Nietzsche, The Will to Power, transl. Walter Kaufmann (Random House, 1968), sec. 558 apud Rorty, 2007a, p.111, n8. 3 The Will to Power, trans. Kaufmann (New York: Random House,1967), sec. 608 and sec. 515 apud Rorty (1991, p. 2, n. 1 e 2). 4 See CIS, Introduction, p. xiii. R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro philosophy. Without it we would not have the works of undoubtedly an anti-representationalist, nominalist, philosophers like Foucault, Heidegger, Dewey, Habermas historicist, anti-Cartesian philosopher. So it is impossible and Rawls. to settle him on the side of the Plato-Kantian canon. By ‘historicist turn’ Rorty means the philosophical The ‘historicist turn’ promoted by Hegel have overcome ‘revolution’ Before Hegel all attempts to define the human nature or the human metaphysics and theology dominated the intellectual essence. For Hegel and Hegelians like Rorty there is culture of the West. According to their followers, every nothing prior to history or prior to socialization which human being has the same nature, or essence. So, the would capture the absolute definition of humanity. This individual self-realization is the fulfillment of this very means, first, that we are set free to create either our nature or essence. For Christianity this essence was private identity as we please or to imagine one new given by our common origin as creature of God: we were society as we please. There cannot be previously any born to continue his work, to spread love and goodness sort of absolute given knowledge about how the future all over the world. Before Christianity, Platonian will be like. History is the form in which the human spirit metaphysicians already inferred that in order to fulfill shows its capacity to create and invent new forms of our real nature as rational beings we needed to be societies altruistic. For them virtuous behaviors were signs of constitutes a common assumption for all post-Hegelian rationality. As a matter of fact, the coincidence between philosophers such as Heidegger, Habermas, Foucault and the first and the second is not fortuitous, for Nietzsche Rawls. inaugurated by Hegel. and selves. This historicist perspective “Christianity is the Platonism for the people” (2002, p.4). The second consequence of the historicist turn is one Nietzsche was skeptical about the existence of naturally which perhaps Rorty was the first to notice – he wrote or essentially altruistic human soul. His view about CIS in order to elaborate this second consequence, as he human solidarity and community is in this point very tell us in “Trotsky and the Wild Orchids” (1999, p.13). For similar to Hobbes; human beings search above all the him one of the important results of the historicist turn is satisfaction of their desires and individual aspirations. that there is no need any more to unify a search for They accept to live in community and help each other private self-creation with an urge to engage oneself in a 5 only for “fear of the neighbor”. But his skepticism, tell new social utopia. Transposed to the philosophical field us Rorty, was not enough to free him totally from this conclusion means that one does not have to choose metaphysical frames of thought. Rorty agrees with between Rawls and Foucault, or between Heidegger and Heidegger that Nietzsche was not really the post- Habermas. One can use their writings simultaneous but metaphysician he would like to be. He was rather the for different purposes. Authors like Heidegger and last metaphysician, the proponent of an inverted Foucault are useful for our private self-creation; while Platonism. Similar to the dogmatizers he criticizes, authors like Habermas and Ralws are useful for helping Nietzsche also had his version of the only thing that is us understand why the mechanisms through which the 6 really real, the ‘will to power’. But besides some public institutions try to accomplish their social functions inconsistencies fail, and imagine new regulation’s forms. But this division in his writings Nietzsche was is far from settled. Even those authors themselves do 5 See Nehamas (1985), p. 211. 6 While reading Nehamas’s book on Nietzsche I have got the impression that one can deflate the ‘will to power’s concept, its metaphysical content, and reduce it just to our unavoidable evaluative form of dealing with things, persons, ourselves and events in the world. 24 not avoid mixing both spheres. And so we have, for one side, idiosyncratic discourses which also aim a large social resonance and, on the other side, public discourses which attack idiosyncratic discourses as if R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro 7 they represented a severe threat to democracy. But the in words. Even though Nietzsche is very critical about amalgamation of both vocabularies, private and public, the metaphysical distinction between reality and results disastrous from a Rortyan perspective. appearance, and the dogmatic position of scientific knowledge, he has not confronted deeply enough the For one side, it would be a disaster, for example, if we old realistic conception of truth as correspondence try to take Heidegger’s conclusions about the decadence (Nehamas, p. 52-55). While in early essays like “On truth of contemporary West societies seriously. He, like and lies in a non-moral sense” he holds a position very Nietzsche, thought he also had a ‘social mission’ to similar to pragmatism’s on truth, in late works, such as accomplish with his works, so he unfortunately adopts Between Good and Evil, he admits that a sentence could Nietzsche antiliberal jabber and despise the ‘herd’. But be false, but this falsity were not a problem: on the other side, it would be an error to judge all Heidegger’s (and Nietzsche’s) contributions We do not consider the falsity of a judgment as itself an objection to a judgment; this is perhaps where our new language will sound most foreign. The question is how far the judgment promotes and preserves life, (…). (Nietzsche, 2002, p. 7). to philosophy in the lights of his (their) anti-democratic positions, as Habermas (Rorty, 2007 and 2000), and many others, do. Life is a central notion for him. Much more important For Rorty, the strength of Heidegger’s and Nietzsche’s philosophical writings lay in their idiosyncratic attitudes. With their very personal writing’s style they stimulate the creativity and the imagination of their readers. Nietzsche never hide himself behind his writings, on the than to know if a sentence is true or not is to evaluate the power of its message, its capacity of promote ‘selfovercominess’. As Rorty asserts (2006a, p.23), in midst of the pragmatists there were never a perspective exactly like what Nietzsche called ‘life’. contrary, they are full of self reference. Through them he presents himself as an author who does not compromise with scholar’s etiquette and smooth talk, and who refuses to subordinate himself to the mainstream authority of traditional metaphysician and theologian. Rorty is very skeptical about the correspondence theory of truth and also critical about notions like theory, absolute foundation, representations and so on, but his philosophical background, the Anglo-Saxon analytical philosophy, is clearly present in his writings. Because One way to avoid outlived theories about the way one should conduct one’s life is to find out a personal style and an own vocabulary for narrating one’s point of views, autobiographical or not – and all this with a lively desire for richer, different experiences in the future. 2. Truth ‘life’ has too many meanings to be used with appropriateness and clarity, it would be better not to make use of it. His way of talking is much more economical, has much less metaphors, analogies and descriptions than Nietzsche’s. In spite of the inconsistence of his positions about truth, Nietzsche, according to Rorty, sustained pragmatist One of the major contributions of pragmatism to philosophy is its critic of the old theory of truth as correspondence. For philosophers like Rorty it makes no positions in various passages of his works (especially The 8 Will to Power, sections 480-544) . Like a pragmatist, Nietzsche take the effects of discourses in account, that sense to talk about a non-linguistic foundation of sentences and propositions since everything, including 7 natural things, are experienced only as we express them Or, as Hegel would say, “Nature is but a moment in the developing self-consciousness of Spirit” (Rorty, 2007a, p. 111). 8 Rorty, 1991, n. 2. 25 R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro is, how they manage or not to produce truth-values. In but all creators are guided by their will to power, by their this sense, he was “a good an anti-cartesian, anti- strength to carry life through all difficulties without representationalist, and antiessencialist as Dewey. He regret. This conception of philosophy is deeply related to was devoted to the question “what difference will this tragedy since the tragic hero is the one who celebrates belief make to our conduct?” as Peirce or James”. (Rorty, the amor fati. He endures all sorts of sorrows and losses 1991, p.2) but he never concludes that it could or should be different. 3. Nihilism As I said above, Rorty is very skeptical about Nietzsche’s A central theme of Nietzsche’s philosophy is ‘nihilism’. employment of ‘life’ as a central philosophical notion. Although this expression does not appear in his major Nonetheless, when one reads his writings, especially CIS, work, Thus spoke Zarathustra, written in the years 1883 one feels that he is also urging us to search our own to 1885, but only in posthumous fragment from 1881, its path, to avoid following mainstreams positions, or implications are clearly there. common sense. And above all one feels that he is urging us to get rid of the fear of making mistakes. Like Zarathustra is the ‘announcer’ of the Overman, of the Nietzsche, he believes that one cannot live outside time. Will to Power and of the Eternal Recurrence. Those three Contingency means accepting all our failures, success, elements jointly build Nietzsche’s tragic or Dionysian and changes. philosophy (Machado, 1997). Tragic philosophy wants to celebrate life with all its ups and downs. It mistrusts the 4. No Representations, but interpretations 9 apparent positive talk of (rational) Philosophy, science and religion. For Nietzsche these are all nihilistic; they With his conception of knowledge as manifestation of a disempower us by fixing absolute values like Truth, Free ‘perspective’ of the knower, that is, as a result of how, Will, God, Immortality, Soul, and so on. For them those due to her cultural background, her intentions and values are eternal and universal. They are not submitted feelings, her interests, she ‘sees’ the issue in question, to temporality. For Nietzsche on the contrary to negate Nietzsche showed that anybody who pretend to be temporality is to negate life. The joy of life is dependent capable of absolute neutrality and so, capable of holding of the temporal flux of open possibilities. ‘last words’ about anything, that is, words that would be universally true, is a nihilist who neglects the forces of On the other side, the modern acceptance of the ‘death life. Even a scientist interprets her object of study from a of God’ has created another sort of nihilism, the passive specific perspective. Interpretation is the way we nihilism. And this is also a terrible situation to live with. normally deal with all sorts of phenomena in the world. For some, the absence of absolute religious values From life’s perspective there is neither mental created an emptiness, a void, a ‘nobody cares’ attitude representation, nor pure neutral analysis of how things which is totally contrary to life. Those are the ones really are. For Nietzsche there is also no object per se or Zarathustra calls the ‘last men’; they do not know about substance, detached from its properties or accidents. An the Overmen. object without qualities has no content. The interpreter So, while criticizing the absolute, a-temporal values, 9 Nietzsche is not saying at the same time that we do not need values. He wants us to celebrate the will as an important value. Every creator has a different path to go, 26 In what follows I make use of Nehamas (1985) clear exposition of Nietzsche’s philosophy (see specially, part I: The World). In a note at the introduction of CIS, Rorty tell us that his “account of Nietzsche owes a great deal to Alexander Nehamas’s original and penetrating Nietzsche: Life as Literature” (p.27). R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro is always interacting with persons and things, affecting outnumbered. For Nietzsche there are few free spirits in and being affected by them. the world and it is good so. For Rorty, it is a distress that most nonintellectuals of today “are still committed That things possess a constitution in themselves quite apart from interpretation and subjectivity, is a quite idle hypothesis; it presupposes that interpretation and subjectivity are not essential, that a thing freed from all relationships would still be a thing. (Nietzsche apud Rorty, 2007a, p.111) either to some form of religious faith or to some form of Enlightenment rationalism” (CIS, p. vx) -- “Enlightenment rationalism” is the Rortyan expression for (blind) belief on the truthfulness of scientific theories. Contrary to Nietzsche, Rorty is not insensitive before this situation. Though we all interpret in order to interact with one He sustains a liberal utopia according to which a another and the rest, only a few of us are capable of ‘narrative turn’ will take place where sermons and making others adopt our point of view. But many of treatises are going to be replaced for novels, movies and those who make us adopt their beliefs and point of TV programs. When this occurs, narratives are going to views, like the ascetic priest or the scientist, hide their take the places of theories. Narratives (journalist’s personal motivation or interest. The ascetic priest reports, docudrama, and, specially, novels) would then pretend he is acting altruistically, always for the good of display ethical arguments without moral authority. By others, never for himself; and the scientist pretend to be bringing detailed description of what unfamiliar people discovering absolute facts that were hidden behind the are like they would present us with the opportunity of events. Both are metaphysician and dogmatist. The re-describing us by amplifying our capacity of feeling priest is a transcendental metaphysician and the compassion towards persons different from us. scientist is a materialistic metaphysician. Both sustain that there is true facts lying behind the phenomena. But 5. Wie man wird, was man ist or private self-creation the ‘genealogist’ does not leave them alone, in peace; she denounces the values and interests that were “How one becomes what one is” constitutes the subtitle concealed behind those neutral and altruistic arguments. of Ecce Homo, Nietzsche’s autobiographical and last Every ‘true’ discourse wants to impose a certain value to book. At the first sight, it seems obviously a all, says Nietzsche. This imposition of private values on contradictory statement. For if Nietzsche rejects the others is not wrong per se, on the contrary, it is the sign metaphysician presupposition of the being as that which in humans of the ‘will of power’, the energy that governs is (the Socrates-Plato’s quest), and instead encourage us everything in the nature. But Nietzsche condemns those to ask ‘whose sum of effects is momentary there’, how two kinds of will of power, the religious and the can he encourage us to become what one is? Besides scientific, for their dogmatism, their incapability of this, with his rejection of the metaphysical concept of recognizing their limitedness. Opposed to those substance as a substrate for accidental qualities, he also 10 The free rejects the concept of a central self, who controls our spirit knows that the things in the world are constantly experiences. Like the events and objects in the world, we changing and that her interpretation/writing is not human beings are constantly changing, being different unconditional. She knows that it reflects her point of persons each time we connect ourselves with new set of view and values. She adopts an attitude of suspicion effects. metaphysicians there are the ‘free spirits’. 11 toward her own beliefs. This ‘attitude of suspicion’ is what Rorty in CIS calls ‘irony’. Like Nietzsche’s free spirits, but for other reasons, he also believes that even in rich, literate democracies the ironist intellectuals are 11 10 See Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. See Nehamas (1985), Chap. 3: A thing Is the Sum of Its Effects” 27 R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro 12 Nehamas make a very persuasive interpretation of this there is an analogy between Nietzsche’s conception of statement. For him we should interpret it in the light of life and the (good) novel, where everything that occurs Nietzsche’s conception of the eternal recurrence and his with its characters has a reason to be, that is, is analogy between life and novels. He disagrees with the connected with all others events of the story. cosmological interpretation of the eternal recurrence. Nietzsche is not affirming that in fact there is an eternal All human beings engage themselves on thousand of time flux in which we keep repeating the same events of experiences during their lives. There are so many our lives, past, present and future. For Nehamas the interconnections between us and things, events and eternal recurrence is not a theory of the world but a persons that one is not capable of capturing, or theory of the self. accessing, all of them consciously. But there is one way where we can find a unified sense for this whole The central aspect of his interpretation is the multiplicity of sensations and effects; it is when we assumption that due to the intrinsic interconnectedness narrate our life. As Nehamas notices, Nietzsche admired of everything, we could not change anything in our past Goethe profoundly -- as also all strong poets (cf. The Gay without changing the world and our identity. “This is Science, 299) --, because through his works Goethe because (…) he [Nietzsche] thinks that the properties of managed to create a singular narrative about himself (cf. each thing are nothing but the effects on other things, Twilight of the Idols, IX, p. 49). Like a good novel, in an the properties of which are in turn nothing but still autobiographical narrative about one’s life every single further such effects.” (Nehamas, 1985, p. 155). For part of it needs to be somehow connected. Every detail Nietzsche’s alter ego, Zarathustra, “all things are has a purpose that connects it to the whole, the life of entangled, ensnared, enamored; if ever you wanted a the narrator. A paradigmatic example of this poetic thing twice (…) then you wanted all back.” (Z., IV, 19). If capacity is the work of Marcel Proust, Remembrance of because of suffering a deception or the effects of a bad Things Past. The narrator of this romance manages to choice or action one expresses the desire of having a remember almost every detail of his life, including all its different life, for Nietzsche, one is in fact expressing the moments of frustrations and disappointments, but by desire to be another person. On the contrary, by doing so he manages at the end of the book to make a accepting the burdens of all our actions (“Thus I willed”) coherent picture of his life. This capacity of make sense and enduring all its bad and good moments, we affirm of those fortuitous and uncountable situations, aspects, our individuality and character. We would endure all the and events of one’s life is the fruit of the will of power. suffering again if it is necessary. One has the possibility to overcome this fragmentary state of life by creating a narrative about oneself. And We still need to explain how one can talk about identity although this narrative is the result of an intentional and self if there is no alienated substance or substrate work of assembling scattered facts and experiences, it is for Nietzsche. In order to answer that we need to put a created-story that is truly coherent. The assemblage side by side three concepts: will to power, truth as will be weak and pale if one is not capable of unifying all creation and narrative. its parts coherently. This is not an easy task; one needs to have a disposition for a constant and pénible self For Nehamas, a central aspect of Nietzsche’s philosophy is his view of the world as a text, a narrative. 13 For him examination. Each momentarily closed self-narrative delivers a unique (momentary) image. This momentarily closed image is the self. But it is unstable. If we add to it 12 Op.cit., chap. 5: This Life – Your Eternal Life. 13 See also Rorty, 2007a, p 117: “(…) Nietzsche was right to think of the world as our poem (…)”. 28 new facts and stories, it will most probably change itself again. R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro Rorty would endorse this interpretation of life as 6. How to Philosophize with a Hammer literature. In fact he writes: “All any ironist can measure success against is the past – not by living up to it, but by The way I read Nietzsche and Rorty, in spite of the many redescribing it in his terms, thereby becoming able to differences we can find between them, at the core their say, “Thus I willed it””. (CIS, p. 97) message is the same. Given that there are no absolute values whatsoever the creator or the strong poet has the Like Nietzsche, Rorty also emphasized the importance of possibility to create new values (or new vocabularies). reading and aspiring to be ‘strong poets’. But his But they cannot create ex nihili, out of nothing. For justification for this relevance is less ‘emotional’. He did Nietzsche, first, one ‘destroys’ previous ‘values’ knotted not consider as Nietzsche the strive for self-overcoming in nonnominalist statements, by showing its genealogy, and self-reliance as a private search for perfection or its specific interests and needs, and then one is free to ‘spiritual cleanliness’ (Rorty, 1991, p.2). The strong poets create new values. Or, using Rortyan vocabulary, first are creative persons, not because they know how to use one connects oneself horizontally with the history of ‘will to power’ and like tragic heroes endure all philosophy, that is, one interprets its zeniths “as the sufferings without regret, but because they manage to culminating reinterpretation create a vocabulary of their own. Both Rorty’s and reinterpretation of their predecessors’ reinterpretation Nietzsche’s heroes were poets, writers and philosophers. ….” (2008a, p.92). After doing this one become new They did not feel the necessity of separating fiction and ‘inspirations’ to invent unforeseen possibilities and to poetry from philosophy because for both of them there regard the so-called eternal objects of philosophy as were no reason to still believe that the task of “artifacts whose fundamental design we often have to philosophy would be to find out the ‘really real’. alter” (idem, ibidem). For of our predecessor’s Rorty we recreate, reinterpretate the past vocabularies in the light of With Rorty, we should say that for post-Nietzscheans today’s cultural atmosphere. “The most that an original philosophy is a ‘kind of writing’. Because of that, notions figure can hope to do is to recontextualize his or her like “philosophy of language” or ‘Kantian philosophy’ are predecessors.” (1991, p.2) So ‘destruction’ here is the in fact out of place. Philosophy is a name for a sector of same as “recontextualizing”. It is not a capricious act but the literate culture. As in any literary genre, “is delimited an important step in the creative process of matching not by form or matter, but by tradition – a family philosophy with the flux of history and with the culture’s romance involving, e.g., Father Parmenides, honest old atmosphere of our current time. Uncle Kant, and bad brother Derrida.” (2008a, 92). References Rorty, Richard. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 th (26 printing). --------. “Philosophy as a Kind of Writing”. In: Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: th University of Minnesota Press, 2008a (11 printing). pp. 90-109. --------. “Introduction: Pragmatism and Philosophy”. In: Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: th University of Minnesota Press, 2008b (11 printing). pp. xiii-xlvii. --------. “Introduction: Pragmatism and post-Nietzschean philosophy”. In: Essays in Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. --------. “Nietzsche, Sócrates e o pragmatismo”. Trans. Paulo Ghiraldelli Jr. In: de Castro, Susana & Vidal, Vera (eds.). A questão da verdade: da metafísica moderna ao pragmatismo. Rio de Janeiro: 7Letras, 2006a. pp. 19-26. --------. “Trotsky and the Wild Orchids”. In: Philosophy and Social Hope. London: Peguin Books, 1999. --------. “Universality and Truth”. In: Brandon, Robert B. (ed.). Rorty and his critics. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000. pp. 1-30. 29 R O R T Y A N D N I E T Z S C H E Susana de Castro --------. “Grandeur, profundity, and finitude”. In: Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Philosophical Papers, Volume 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. pp. 73-88. --------. “Pragmaticism and romanticism”. In: Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Philosophical Papers, Volume 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007a. pp. 73-88. --------. Mendieta, Eduardo (ed.). Take care of freedom and truth will take care of itself. Interviews with Richard Rorty. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. A Book for All and None. Trans. Adrian del Caro. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 30 --------. Beyond Good and Evil. Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Trans. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. --------. The Gay Science. Trans. Josefine Nauckhoff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. --------. The Twilight of the Idols, or How to Philosophize with a Hammer. Trans. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. --------. Ecce Homo: How to Become What you Are. Trans. Judith Norman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Nehamas, Alexander. Nietzsche, Life as Literature. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985. Machado, Roberto. Zaratustra, Tragédia Nietzschiana. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar Editor, 1997. RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: Smith 1983 [1981]) or might these activities be AN IRONIC PORTRAIT AND SINCERE EXPRESSION OF conceived in a more conciliatory, less polemical, spirit? PHILOSOPHICAL FRIENDSHIP Indeed, I have always been charmed by William Ernest Vincent Colapietro Hocking’s confession regarding his stance toward John (Pennsylvania State University, vxc5@psu.edu) 2 Dewey, made at the 1939 meeting of the APA : “I seem to remember reading a paper [ten years ago] at that session [of the APA] at which I recounted the tragedy of thirty-two years occupied in refuting Dewey while Introduction Dewey remained unconscious of what had happened!” What are the limits of redescription, the possibilities of 1 renarration, regarding the relationship between Charles Peirce and Richard Rorty? Is rapprochement between these two philosophers, however qualified and circumscribed, even a remote possibility? Is a narrative in which Rorty is advancing Peirce’s impulses, rather than ridiculing or obstructing them, simply an even more distant prospect? Indeed, is such an exercise in storytelling anything more than a truly fantastic flight of a narrative imagination beyond anything Rorty himself would proffer or endorse? The value of such an undertaking is far from evident, the obstacles too numerous and obvious to discount, let alone to ignore. Even so, are we simply stuck at an impasse, where advocacy of Peirce entails a rejection of Rorty or sympathy to Rorty demands antipathy toward Peirce? Are the hermeneutic and narrative games in which we are engaged best envisioned as zero sum games (cf. (LW 14, 411). But, then, Hocking rather playfully went on to reveal: “I have now a different and happier report to make. Not … that Dewey has changed, but that I have largely ceased to read him with polemical intent: I read him to enjoy him. In this I succeed far better, in fact I am almost completely successful” (ibid; emphasis added). What seems to be implicit in Hocking’s altered stance toward his philosophical rival is that such an engagement is not only enjoyable but also profitable: rather than teaching Dewey where he is in error, Hocking seems captivated by the prospect of learning from his interlocutor. Is it possible for at least some Peirceans to read Rorty without polemical intent, for the primary purpose of simply enjoying what he has to say, perhaps for the secondary one of learning where he is on to something? Such, at least, is the experiment undertaken in this essay. This essay is accordingly an essay (or essai) in the etymological sense – nothing more (but nothing less) than a trial, an attempt to approach Rorty in a different manner than is now the custom 1 In “American Pragmatism: The Conflict of Narratives,” Richard J. Bernstein stresses: “We should be wary of anyone who claims that there are fixed criteria by which we can decide who is and who is not a pragmatist. Such boundary setting is not only unpragmatic, it is frequently used as a power play to legitimatize unexamined prejudices” (1995, 67). In this essay, I have tried to heed Bernstein’s advice. This practically means that my argumentative retelling of the pragmatic legacy – or, more precisely, the Peircean inheritance – will inevitably “be in conflict with other argumentative retellings” (ibid.) The ultimate justification for this is that it not only avoids blocking the road of inquiry but also opens new routes, ones leading (I hope) to more convivial settings and thereby civil exchanges. For an important renarration, though one not necessarily at odds with the main emphasis of my own playful retelling, see Bernstein’s “The Resurgence of Pragmatism” (1992). among Peirceans. Pragmatist ought, even more than other philosophers, to be experimentalists. Hence, they ought to be open to trying to comport themselves differently, otherwise than tradition (however recent) prompts them to proceed. Novel possibilities ought not to be dismissed prematurely; unconventional alignments 2 The context was a symposium devoted to Dewey’s concepts of experience and nature at which Morris R. Cohen presented a paper entitled “Some Difficulties in Dewey’s Anthropocentric Naturalism” and Hocking one entitled simply “Dewey’s Concepts of Experience and Nature” (see the Appendix of LW 14 for a reprint of these essays). Dewey’s response bore the title “Nature in Experience” (LW 14, 141-54). RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro ought not to be rejected unreflectively. There is no ignoring these critiques. When he did respond to such more pragmatic adage than this: the proof of the critics, he tended to do so in a tempered, conscientious, pudding is in the eating – that is, it is not in the recipe. thoughtful, and respectful manner. Abstract formulae can never take the place of concrete however, his responses to them left these critics even experience. So, too, formal definitions need ultimately more exasperated than the formulations or texts to give way to pragmatic clarifications. And this Peircean prompting their efforts in the first place. He became point (indeed, what point could be more Peircean?) famous for shrugging off criticism, sometimes with a provides an important clue for how to redescribe and look of gentle bemusement, at other times with a deeply renarrate the relationship between Peirce and Rorty. weary look of barely maintained forbearance. 6 If anything, But much needs to be said before we are in a position to explore (indeed, to exploit) this possibility. First of all, Once again, then, it seems that professional philo- the implausibility of what I am proposing needs to be sophers explicitly acknowledged. denunciation (when they take notice of each other) or have reached the impasse of mutual (as is more often the case) assumed the stance of On an August occasion, moreover one in which he 3 reciprocal disregard. 7 Endless wrangling at the level of announced to his analytic brethren his thoroughgoing abstract definitions seemed to condemn philosophers to adherence to American pragmatism, Rorty proclaimed go round and round, to no effect. So we might puzzle that Peirce did little more than give this movement its interminably, Did the squirrel go round the man or the name. 4 In response to this and other dismissals or man ‘round the squirrel? 8 Is there any way of giving disparagements of Peirce, Peirceans and indeed other these creatures a rest or, even better, inviting them to pragmatists have used a number of names to take part in a more profitable chase, a more worthwhile characterize Rorty’s pragmatism and, more generally, his 6 project. If all Peirce did was to give pragmatism its name, it sometimes seems that all Peirceans can do is call Rorty names, virtually all of them unflattering. The identification of him as a “vulgar pragmatist” and the characterization of his project as an unedifying one are among the best examples of this pronounced tendency. 5 For the most part, however, defenders and interpreters of pragmatism (paleo-pragmatism?) have constructed detailed refutations of what they apparently take to be a hostile takeover of this philosophical movement by Rorty. For the most part, he has blithely gone his way, 3 I use this term deliberately, since at the time of his Presidential Address the APA was overwhelmingly not only a masculine but also masculinist association. In this regard, it still lags far behind such fields as history, English, French, Comparative Literature, and Religious Studies. 4 What more he did was inspire James (1982 [1980], 161). 5 The person who in the first instance used these labels has been engaged not in simply hurling derogatory labels, but in painstaking analyses and critiques of Rorty’s arguments and positions. This is of course Susan Haack. 32 See, e.g., his response to Susan Haack in Saatkamp (1995) or to Cheryl Misak in Auxier and Hahn (2010) 7 Who can disregard whom is an index of relative power. 8 I am of course referring to the anecdote used by James to introduce his own account of pragmatism as a method. Returning to camp after rambling alone, James discovered his companions to be “engaged in a ferocious metaphysical dispute” (very quickly, it becomes impossible not to detect the irony in this description of the quarrel). The playfulness persists in his pun: “The corpus of the dispute was a squirrel – a live squirrel supposed to be clinging to one side of a tree-trunk; while over against the tree’s opposite side a human being was imagined to stand.” “Does the man go round the squirrel or not?” James in introducing the pragmatic method in this playful manner is quite explicit – indeed, emphatic: “The pragmatic method in such cases is to try to interpret each notion by tracing its respective practical consequences” (28). Otherwise interminable verbal wrangling is brought to a halt by a substantive consideration of the practical entailed – or not – by verbally different accounts. “If no practical difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing, and all dispute is idle. Whenever a dispute is serious, we ought to be able to show some practical difference that must follow from one side of the other’s being right” (ibid.). Or, as Peirce puts it in How to Make Our Ideas Clear, “there is no difference of meaning so fine as not to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice” (CP 5.400; emphasis added). RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro endeavor? Might redescription and renarration move us to this contemporary philosopher, one of the first rank, beyond this impasse? This essay is accordingly an whose name is not ordinarily associated with either attempt to test those limits, to explore those Charles Peirce or Richard Rorty. For he suggests one way possibilities. In this I am guided by John E. Smith’s sage we advice at the conclusion of his presidential address to relationship between Peirce and Rory. 9 the Eastern Division of the APA : might describe, possibly redescribe, 11 the In a recent lecture, we learn of not only Peirce’s influence on his early development but also Rorty’s role in his ongoing [T]he task before us now is to initiate [or facilitate] a serious dialogue among the many different philosophical opinions represented in this Association. I believe that this can happen only if everyone is prepared to abandon two claims; first, that any single approach is the only legitimate one, and secondly, that those pursuing philosophical inquiry in any fashion other than one’s own are ipso facto not engaged in philosophy at all. (1983 [1981], 241-42). Smith goes on to note that the first claim (the one maturation. This is likely to be surprising to even many who know his work well, since he hardly ever mentions Peirce and he almost always refers to Rorty for the purpose of criticism. His engagement with Peirce was mediated by a British philosopher, one whose name (let 12 alone writings) too few are today likely to know ; that with Rorty involved face-to-face conversations when both were young men. 13 regarding pluralism) concerns respect for philosophy, whereas the second (the one regarding seeing In “On Not Knowing Where One Is Going,” his John representatives of different philosophical traditions as Dewey Lecture to the Central Division of the APA, no less worthy of the title philosopher than adherents of Alasdair MacIntyre recalled: our own intellectual approach) concerns respect for persons (242). In 1952 W. B. Gallie had introduced British readers to C. S. Peirce in his Peirce and Pragmatism. This led me to think about Peirce’s canons of enquiry and to ask what analogy there might be between scientific enquiry, as characterized by Peirce, and philosophical Surely there is wisdom in Smith’s insistence that “the baffling character of philosophical problems demands nothing less than a cooperative endeavor instead of partisan strife” (ibid.). This is as true regarding what happens within a philosophical tradition such as American pragmatism as what transpires between (or among) different traditions. Peirce’s “Canons of Enquiry”/Rorty’s Immunity from Refutation As much as Rorty and indeed any other contemporary philosopher, there is one who has unquestionably taken the irreducible plurality of philosophical traditions with the utmost seriousness. 10 And, very recently, he has done so explicitly in reference to the two thinkers under consideration here. It is consequently instructive to turn 9 It is significant and, to some extent, ironic that Rorty’s presidency made possible Smith’s including a parliamentary decision regarding a technical question of voting. 10 See, e.g., his presidential address to the APA, “Relativism, Power, and Philosophy” (1985). 11 It is unlikely that Peirceans who have been critical of Rorty would find much, if anything, novel in the substance of what Alasdair MacIntyre claims – that Rorty has refashioned his position to the point where virtually nothing counts as a refutation of it (2010, 72). 12 W. B. Gallie’s “Essentially Contested Concepts” is in my judgment one of the most important essays in AngloAmerican philosophy appearing in the second half of the twentieth century. It was first published in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol.56, (1956), pp.167-198 (having been first presented as a paper to that Society). A slightly revised version then appeared in Philosophy and the Historical Understanding (London: Chatto & Windus, 1964). Rorty’s metaphilosophical position might be seen as a strenuous defense of essentially contested concepts and, in light of this realization, a pragmatist response. Moreover, Gallie’s book on Peirce is still worthy of consultation. In most important respects, it stands up even given advances in our understanding of Peirce. 13 “Before I finally emigrated to the United States,” Alasdair MacIntyre recently recalled, “I had twice been a visiting Fellow of the Council of the Humanities at Princeton, where the young Rorty was engaged in redefining analytic philosophy by editing The Linguistic Turn” (2010, 71). 33 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro enquiry. I concluded that in philosophy as in natural science falsifiability is crucial, that imaginative conjectures – Popper’s terms, of course, not Peirce’s – have to be confronted with the widest and strongest range of objections from rival points of view, and in the light of those objections rejected or revised and reformulated. As reformulation and revision proceed through successive confrontations of conjectures with objections a philosophical tradition of enquiry is apt to emerge. And to do good work is generally to work within such a tradition. (2010, 63; cf. Maddelena) is removed. … Doubt acts quite promptly to destroy belief. Its first effect is to destroy the state of satisfaction. Yet the belief-habit may still subsist. But imagination so readily affects this habit, that the former believer will soon begin to act in a half-hearted manner and before long the habit will be destroyed. The most important character of doubt is that no sooner does a believer learn that another man equally well-informed and equally competent doubts what he has believed, than he begins by doubting it himself. (NEM, IV, 41) One way to counteract this doubt is, as Peirce suggests The importance of working within a tradition, of selfconsciously participating in the debates at the center of any intergenerational community of philosophical inquirers and, thus, taking seriously the responsibility to elsewhere, to doubt the competence of the person who holds a position other than one’s own. He is quite explicit about this tendency on the part of inquirers, including himself. respond to the champions of rival positions, cannot be underestimated. 14 This enjoins the additional responsibility to craft or formulate our positions in such a way that their weaknesses and limitations, perhaps even their fatal flaws, come to be identified in the backand-forth so critical for such traditions. Even if philosophers cannot transform their discipline into a science in the same sense as physics or geology, chemistry or biology, they can address their questions in a manner akin, however remotely, to the communal work of experimental inquirers in these paradigmatic sciences. 15 For responsible participants in a communal inquiry, scientific or otherwise, genuine doubt arises when competent persons actually disagree. This means that doubt is ineliminable. But there is a dilemma regarding this hardly ever acknowledged by interpreters of Peirce. He assists us in formulating this dilemma when he confesses: Like irritations generally, doubt sets up a reaction which does not cease until the irritation … in science a question is not regarded as settled or its solution as certain until all intelligent and informed doubt has ceased and all competent persons have come to a catholic agreement, whereas fifty metaphysicians, each holding opinions that no one of the other forty-nine can admit, will nevertheless generally regard their fifty opposite opinions as more certain than that the sun will rise tomorrow. This is to have what seems an absurd disregard for others’ opinions. The man of science attaches positive value to the opinion of every man as competent as himself, so that he cannot but have a doubt of a conclusion which he would adopt were it not that a man opposes it; but on the other hand, he will regard a sufficient divergence from the convictions of the great body of scientific men as tending of itself to argue incompetence, and he will generally attach little weight to the opinions of men who have long been dead and were ignorant of much that has been since discovered which bears upon the question in hand. (1.32) The medieval schoolmen who far more than more metaphysicians exhibited a due respect for their intellectual rivals were faulted by Renaissance humanists for their lack of literary style (1.33). According to these critics, the schoolmen not only lacked such style but also the disposition to study matters “in a literary spirit” (ibid.). The culture of Renaissance humanism was that 14 “The history of a tradition is …,” as John E. Smith notes, “an indispensable resource for philosophical understanding” (1992, 86) 15 Dewey argues that, if philosophical inquirers more resolutely adopted an empirical approach to their subject matter, they would “procure for philosophic reflection something of that cooperative tendency toward consensus which marks inquiry in the natural sciences.” (LW 1, 389). See Colapietro 1998. 34 of litterateurs, whereas that of the medieval schoolmen was one of a “searching thoroughness” and selfless devotion. In these and other respects, then, Peirce judged the scholastic doctors to be closer in spirit to experimental inquirers than were the humanist writers. This was nowhere more apparent than in “their restless RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro insatiable impulse to put their opinions to the test” Many philosophers today would like to dismiss Rorty as a (1.33). The elegant formulation of a position counted for philosopher. almost nothing, while the most succinct proffering of disregard much of the criticism directed at him, often evidence counted above all else. simply shrugging in response and then continuing to 17 In turn, Rorty himself had a tendency to advance positions against which an escalating din of and often quite nasty opposition was hurled. His notoriety contemporaries the respect implicit in the act of hearing was secured in no small measure by his skills as a them out, of weighing the evidence for their positions provocateur: his ability to provoke responses and (assessing the strength of their arguments), especially criticisms insured that any change in conversation would One must accord one’s when one holds a rival position. predecessors 16 The very presence of have him at or near the center of controversy. such rivals constitutes a basis for doubt. But the impulse to refute these opponents is strong, but in some When philosophers such as MacIntyre, Robert Brandom, instances that of doubting their own relevance or even and Richard Bernstein take Rorty so seriously, is it expertise might even be stronger. responsible to dismiss him out of hand? This however In critical On the one hand, the actual deference to them but also in direct appreciation of disagreement between (or among) competent inquirers Rorty’s considerable gifts as a philosophical thinker, at is a basis for doubt. Such doubt is an impetus for honest least I cannot simply dismiss him. Rorty’s conclusions inquiry, inquiry in which one’s own position is treated as and positions are however more often than not directly possibly mistaken or inadequate. On the other hand, opposed to those defended by Peirce, a philosopher for such disagreement can prompt us to doubt not our own whom I have the highest regard and greatest admiration. belief but the competence of our opponent(s). Either we More than anyone else, Susan Haack has identified the accredit the competence of our opponents, in which main points of disagreement and, then, criticized case doubt is in most arenas (to all appearances) Rortyean positions from a Peircean perspective. There is ubiquitous and ineliminable; or we discredit our no necessity for me to try doing again what she has done opponents, judging them to be incompetent at least so well, even if at times in too harsh or uncharitable a generates a dilemma. regarding the question under consideration, in which case the actual disagreements among “competent” inquirers might be defanged. 16 This claim needs to be qualified. One is not required to listen to anybody and everybody. Determining the justified limitations on who counts as a less than negligible interlocutor is, in practice, often a delicate and difficult task. For example, Simon Blackburn assumes only Continental philosophers are susceptible to the cultish elevation of obscurantist authors such as Heidegger. My suspicion is that such a view can be sustained by such a thoughtful, intelligent person only because he is operating in too narrow a circle of interlocutors (i.e., only because he has in effect launched preemptory strikes on strong representatives of the opposite viewpoint). See my “Tradition, Dialectic, and Ideology” (2006). 17 Despite fundamental differences, John E. Smith is not one such philosopher. In America’s Philosophical Vision, he readily admits: “Richard Rorty has written perceptively about the impact of Pragmatism on philosophy in America, and his contribution must certainly be taken into account” (1992, 5). But he quickly points out that doing so is made difficult by the fact (or “inconvenience”) of there being “at least two Rortys – perhaps there are even more. There is first the Rorty – I shall use ‘rorty’ for this persona following his own device with the use of ‘philosophy’ and ‘Philosophy’ – who acutely captures the central drift of Pragmatism and brings it to bear on recent discussions in an illuminating way” (6). But there is in addition “a second Rorty – I shall use ‘Rorty’ for this persona”; he is doing something different in latching onto Dewey and onto the idea of ‘overcoming tradition in order to get rid of Platonism and metaphysics or what he sometimes calls ‘Philosophy’” (ibid.). There is no doubt something sly and indeed mischievous in Smith’s use of rorty (lower case) to designate the person with whom he is in deepest sympathy. An even more sympathetic interpreter and critic – Jeffrey Stout – also feels the need to distinguish between two persona – the prophetic and the therapeutic Rorty (2007, 9ff.) 35 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro tone. If one wants a Peircean critique of Rorty’s creative appropriation of the pragmatic tradition, and if one wants this presented in a straightforward, candid, and indeed uncompromising manner, one cannot do better I recall here MacIntyre’s own recollections because they help me inaugurate my own attempt to consider Rorty and Peirce – and to do so as a Peircean, but also (as it turns out) as a Rortyean of a rather extreme stripe (cf. than consult Haack’s work. Peirce). I am disposed to agree with Rorty when he But I admire MacIntyre’s philosophical acumen no less than Haack’s, his erudition as much (if not more) than any other living philosopher. 18 So, from a Peircean perspective, I am given pause. I have no reason to doubt MacIntyre’s veracity conversations with when the he young claims Rorty that his “were as philosophically exciting as any I have ever had” (2010, 71). (Indeed, I have no reason to doubt his veracity in reference to any of his other assertions.) MacIntyre’s reflections here bear directly on Peirce and Rorty. For he goes on to divulge not only his admiration for Rorty but also “the combination of admiration and claims, “human beings are at their best when they play” (2004, 25). So I intend to be playful rather than polemical, to join him in being ironic, rather than succumbing to what Nietzsche castigated as the spirit of seriousness. Of course, Peirce came to philosophy via Schiller and Rorty makes this suggestion about humans at their best in reference to Schiller (along with Oscar Wilde). Moreover, Peirce is quick to divulge: “… I seriously believe that a bit of fun helps thought and tends to keep it pragmatical” (EP 2, 161). 19 So, in being playful, I take myself to be Peircean no less than Rortyean exasperation that I felt and feel toward his project” (72). MacIntyre feels no ressentiment for his at least equally famous contemporary (MacIntyre was born in 1929, Playful Experiments: A Strong Misreading and an Ironic Portrait Rorty in 1931): “Unlike some analytic philosophers I did not resent his change of professional identification [from philosopher to professor of humanities]. Unlike quite a number of others I did not think that I had a knock-down argument with which to refute him, except perhaps on this or that point of detail.” In MacIntyre’s judgment, however, the indefeasible character of Rorty’s philosophical position speaks not in favor but against his position. There is nothing necessarily wrong with polemics or, at least, a forthright exchange of divergent ideas, including the mutual accountability resulting from claim and counterclaim, argument and counterargument, argument and refutation, alleged refutation and critical response. Forthright acknowledgment of fundamental disagreement unquestionably has its proper place in philosophical discourse. It is not too difficult, however, to imagine how a predominantly agonistic conception of … just that was my central problem with Rorty’s new claims. His ability to respond to his critics’ arguments seemed to me more than a matter of his splendid dialectical skills. It was also the case that he had in the end succeeded in formulating his positions so that they were in effect immune from refutation. And this is, as I had learned much earlier from Peirce, the worst fate that can befall any theorist. We need, if we are rational, to be able to say what would show us to be mistaken. But in the end this is what Rorty could not do. (72) 18 This is so even though I am not sympathetic with many aspects of his critique of liberalism or, more generally, modernity. In this regard, I concur with Jeffrey Stout’s critique of MacIntyre’s critique of modernity. 36 philosophical exchange tends not so much to deepen our understanding as it provides an outlet for our baser impulses. 19 20 When this happens, such discourse is “There is,” he notes elsewhere, “an attitude of spirit that is separated only by a swordblade from fun, and yet is in fully harmony with all that is spiritual and even hungers for that which is devotional” (MS 280, 23). 20 Such a culture is one in which nonsense, errors, and fallacies are exposed for what they are. It is one in which justice tends to eclipse charity. All of this seems unqualifiedly appropriate, until we consider seriously Peirce’s claim: “Suppose, for instance, that I have an idea that interests me. It is my creation. It is my creature; for … it is [in a sense] a little person. I love it; and I will sink RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro reduced to little (if anything) more than a polemos, a war struggle a just undertaking.” This practically means that in which the defense of truth warrants the destruction of “the person he confronts is not a partner in the search one’s adversary (cf. Foucault 112). This has become such for truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who a central feature of philosophical discourse that Michel is harmful, and whose very existence constitutes a Foucault (none other than Foucault!) draws a very sharp threat” (112). distinction between discussion and polemic. On the one removal of such a threat entails, justifiably, the hand, he is quick to note: “I like discussions, and when I annihilation of this adversary. And this practically means that the am asked questions, I try to answer them.” On the other, he stresses his distaste for polemics. If he opens a Rorty certainly does not eliminate entirely the agonistic book and sees the author calling an adversary a name dimension of philosophical discourse. Part of what he (e.g., accusing an individual of being an advocate of does however is, following suggestions made by Harold “infantile leftism”), “I shut it again right away” (111). Bloom in The Anxiety of Influence and elsewhere, to That is, he emphasizes, his way of doing things: he locate this dimension in the relationship the younger simply does not want to belong to “the world of people generation of creative philosophers and their intellectual who do things that way.” He goes so far as to suggest, ancestors. “Strong philosophers” might be modeled on “a whole morality is at stake, the morality that concerns Bloom’s image of “strong poets,” an emancipatory form the search for truth and the relation to the other” (ibid.) of philosophical discourse moreover might be modeled on what he calls “strong misreading.” In any event, Discussion in the sense intended by Foucault is nothing Rorty was an uncompromising advocate of strong less than “the serious play of questions and answers,” misreading. This is nowhere more evident than in his the suggestion that the theorist or critic overarching objective of which is “mutual elucidation.” In contrast, the polemicist “proceeds enasks neither the author nor the text about their intentions but simply beats the text into a shape which will serve his own purpose. He does this by imposing a vocabulary – a ‘grid,’ in Foucault’s terminology – on the text which may have nothing to do with any vocabulary used in the text or by its author, and seeing what happens. The model here is not the curious collector of clever gadgets taking them apart to see what makes them work and carefully ignoring any extrinsic end they may have [or serve], but the psychoanalyst blithely interpreting a dream or a joke as a symptom of homicidal mania. (1982 [1981], 151) cased in privileges that he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that myself in perfecting it. It is not by dealing our cold justice to the circle of my ideas that I can make them grow, but by cherishing and tending to them as I would the flowers in my garden" (CP 6.289). Might it not also be the case that it is only by acting likewise toward the ideas presented by others that I can assist in their growth? Think here of James’s stance toward Freud’s approach to psychology, an approach about which James had deep suspicions and (in some respects, most of all the reductive treatment of religious experience entailed by the Freudian approach) a fundamental antipathy. “After meeting Freud at Clark University, James wrote to a friend: “I hope that Freud and his pupils will push their ideas to their utmost limit, so that we may learn what they are. They can’t fail to throw light on human nature …” He expressed this hope despite in the very same sentence confessing: “he made on me personally the impression of a man obsessed with fixed ideas” (Perry, II, 122). To another friend he wrote around the same time: “I strongly suspect Freud, with his dream-theory, of being a regular halocline” (II, 123). Despite these severe misgivings, he hoped Freud and his followers would cultivate their ideas with the deep cherishing concern necessary to facilitate the growth of any human idea. Later, in “The Pragmatist’s Progress,” he observes: “Interpretation itself needs no defense; it is with us 21 always …” (1992, 110). 21 This is part of an exchange with Umberto Eco. There is, for the purpose of understanding Rorty’s relationship to Peirce, arguably no more important later text by Rorty, since Eco is in both his own mind and that of Rorty, so closely associated with Peirce’s efforts to circumscribe the irrepressibly wild impulses of our hermeneutic imagination. 37 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro He would repeatedly call Davidson a pragmatist while charlatan or irresponsible litterateur whom all too many Davidson this Peirceans apparently see staring back at them when they characterization. Despite Davidson’s protestation, Rorty read his texts. As unfortunate as this term likely is, took himself to be justified in applying this appellation to Peirce was a historicist no less than Dewey, perhaps himself 22 would vehemently reject Moreover, despite Peirce’s prominence in even more than James. That is, he was not a formalist in the history of pragmatism, Rorty virtually denied the title the sense derided by Rorty (see Colapietro 2004). Peirce of pragmatist to the figure who is generally recognized was not engaged in the task of providing human as the father of this movement. inquirers with an “ahistoric framework.” this thinker. In his Presidential He was Address to the Eastern Division of the APA, he said (as I committed rather to methodological improvisations have already noted, though not yet quoted): Peirce’s made in the exacting context of some actual inquiry. “contribution to pragmatism was merely to have given it a name, and to have stimulated James” (1982, 161). Is If Rorty was mistaken about Peirce in this regard, then not turnaround here fair play? In granting, however Peirceans might consider the possibility of their own role provisionally, Rorty his hermeneutic right to strip Peirce in contributing to this misunderstanding – at least, their of the title of pragmatist, I accord myself the right to dub failure (if only by omission) of presenting Peirce as a Rorty a Peircean. Despite appearances, I am not playing historically self-conscious actor who took his task to be a game of “Anything Goes.” Rather I am engaging in that facilitating the growth (not the justification) of of “Hermeneutic Turnabout.” Rather than calling him a knowledge. No anachronism has served Peirce more vulgar pragmatist (see, e.g., Haack), calling Rorty a poorly Peircean pragmatist would have likely caused him epistemologist (i.e., an analytic philosopher fixated on consternation. But my motive is not to provoke the the skeptical problem). provocateur or (as it turns out, since he is no longer methodologist, preoccupied with opening fields of alive) his disciples and defenders; it is to illuminate inquiry, removing obstacles from the road of inquiry, and otherwise undetected affinities between the most forging novel paths (crafting new methods). He was self- important figure in the inaugural phase of the pragmatic consciously a historical actor engaged in an unfolding movement and the most influential one in its drama, primarily concerned with questions of how to go contemporary resurgence. on (cf. Wittgenstein), how to carry on the work of This does not reduce to than reading him as a contemporary He was a pragmaticist name calling. My aim is to help readers of Rorty see a inquiry. different Peirce than the one Rorty portrayed, also foundations for the edifice of human knowledge. There devotees of Peirce to glimpse a different Rorty than they is, of course, the text place by Charles Hartshorne and are disposed to discern. Peirce was not nearly the Paul Weiss as the Preface to the Collected Papers: “To Kantian whom Rorty saw staring back at him from erect a philosophical edifice that shall outlast the Peirce’s writings, just as Rorty is not the literary vicissitudes of time, my care must be not so much to set This did not require securing indubitable each brick with nicest accuracy, as to lay the foundation 22 In the essay on which I have been drawing, MacIntyre notes that he is indebted to Rorty for not only their conversations but also introducing him to Davidson, “both the man and the work”: “But the Davidson to whom Rorty introduced me turned out to have a Döppelganger, that subtle and imaginative fiction, Rorty’s Davidson. And Rorty’s Davidson became one of major dramatis personae in a story that Rorty developed of how ‘analytic philosophy culminates in Quine, the later Wittgenstein, Sellars, and Davidson – which is to say that it transcends and cancels itself’” 2010, 71). MacIntyre is here quoting Rorty himself (London Review of Books, January 20, 2005). 38 deep and massive” (1.1). Peirce in fact wrote these words and there is no need to deny their existence. But do they convey Peirce’s defining aspirations in all of their complex character? In particular is Peirce’s own antifoundationalism at all evident in this pronouncement of his aspiration? What happens when we juxtapose this text with ones like the following? Science RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro … is driven in desperation to call upon its inward sympathy with nature, its instinct for aid, just as we find Galileo at the dawn of modern science making his appeal to il lume naturale. But in so far as it does this, the solid ground of fact fails it. It feels from that moment that its position is only provisional. It must then find confirmations or else shift its footing. Even if it does find confirmations, they are only partial. It still is not standing upon the bedrock of fact. It is walking upon a bog and can only say, this ground seems to hold for the present. Here I will stay till it begins to give way. (5.589) Peirce no less than Thomas Kuhn or Richard Rorty was convinced that in the actual course of human inquiry the ground will eventually give way. Was Peirce’s impulse to jump outside of time and history or was it rather to participate in our ongoing practices of experimental inquiry in a truly deliberate and intelligent manner? Did he strive to construct an ahistoric framework or rather to respond to historical crises in a practical fashion (contributing as a practitioner, thus a historically situated agent, to the immanent crises of various historical undertakings)? Theory is itself a form of practice the conception of revolution or a Freudian abandoning the notion of the unconscious. If one begins at the very end of Kant’s first Critique and focuses on “The Architectonic of Pure Reason” and “The History of Pure Reason,” rather than being misled mostly by the trappings of Peirce’s “New List of Categories” into supposing he was engaged in a transcendental deduction of his categoreal scheme (cf. Zach), then one is likely to understand Peirce’s undertaking in a manner much closer to the way he understood his own project. If one then substitutes experimental reason for pure reason, one will not only have an even clearer comprehensive of Peirce’s project but also a more accurate measure of the great distance between him and the philosopher by whom his youthful self was so deeply enthralled. Peirce was not Kant with a dash of Darwin and the logic of relations. He was, in his mature thought, far, far distant from Kant. The failure of Peirceans to make this clear is, in part, a reason why Rorty and others are so easily misled regarding Peirce’s architectonic aspirations and (of the utmost importance) and, as such, it is an affair of history. historicist commitments. The tendency to see Peirce as first and foremost a philosopher committed to furthering a project akin to Kant’s is, in my judgment, one of the main reasons for our distorted understanding of the Peircean project in its The insistence on reading Peirce as a variant of Kant renders him vulnerable to the trenchant critiques of the transcendental project offered by Rorty in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature and elsewhere. historical uniqueness. This also results in the occlusion of Peircean pragmatism in its full force. 23 For a Kantian to abjure from the bottom of his heart his conception of 24 things-in-themselves is much like a Marxist jettisoning Even granting this, a vast chasm exists between Peirce’s efforts to transform philosophy into a science and Rorty’s rejection of scientism. 25 There are differences and there are differences. Some are negligible, too slight to matter much, if at all, in many contexts. 23 Of course, Kant can be – and ought to be read – as preparing the way for Peirce. See however Mora 1955. 24 The Kantian, Peirce suggests, “has only to abjure from the bottom of his heart the proposition that a thing-initself can, however indirectly, be conceived; and then correct the details of Kant’s doctrine accordingly, and he will find himself to have become a Critical Commonsensist” (CP 5.452). Elsewhere, he insists: “we have direct experience of things in themselves Nothing can be more completely false than that we can experience only our own ideas. That is indeed without exaggeration the very epitome of all falsity. Our knowledge of things in themselves is entirely relative, it is true; but all experience and all knowledge is knowledge of that which is, independently of being Some differences however truly make a difference – widely, deeply, and significantly make a difference. The differences between Peirce and Rorty are almost too obvious to merit much serious attention. They are fundamental, numerous, and (for me at least) mostly uninteresting. These thinkers were for the most part at cross-purposes. Philosophy conceived as an instance of represented (CP 6.95). Rorty no less than Peirce was committed to jettisoning the notion of the Ding-an-sich. 25 As odd as it might sound, Peirce was not a champion of scientism. See, e.g., Bergman and also Short. 39 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro 26 inquiry leaves inadequate room for it envisioned as misreading) of Rorty’s first major publication. redescription, recontextualization. actual development of Rorty’s philosophical career does Peircean inquirers however need not take issue with the not trace the trajectory from an analytic philosopher to a Rortyean “poets.” deconstructive pragmatist. purposes, renarration, engaged and They are animated by different in largely The Rorty was not trained incommensurable primarily as an analyst. Rather he was trained for the undertakings. Neither the one nor the other, given the most part by such systematic philosophers as Richard depth of their historicism, has an unquestionable right to McKeown, Charles Hartshorne, and Paul Weiss, but also legislate exclusively the scope of what philosophy by John E. Smith, a (if not the) major interpreter of the includes. Despite this, Peirce can be read as preparing pragmatic tradition (see Gross 2003). There is another the way for Rorty in certain fundamental respects; in figure (Rulon Wells) with whom Rorty as a graduate addition, Rorty can be read as carrying forward some student studied closely at Yale, moreover, a thinker impulses clearly integral to Peirce’s project. whose relationship to Peirce was at once informed, nuanced, and (in no small measure) ambivalent. His This is not likely to make either Peirceans or Rortyeans eventual turn toward pragmatism, so dramatically happy. At first blush, the evident in his Presidential Address to the Eastern similarities between Peirce and Rorty seem, nonetheless, Division of the APA in 1979 was to some extent a return superficial, scant, and insignificant. (see Gross 2003, 96), a return to a position he had been This is understandable. Upon closer consideration, this turns out to be more or less true. discussing Our initial impression is largely confirmed by further undergraduate days at the University of Chicago (Rorty reflection. Even so, there are similarities and there are 2004, 3). So, as a matter of historical record, the young similarities. Rorty (roughly the age of Peirce when he wrote the Not only do some differences make a with Richard Bernstein since Journal of their Speculative difference; some similarities also do so, especially when “cognition-series” for the fundamental oppositions obtrude at virtually every turn. Philosophy) actually was as emphatic a champion of They intimate ways of looking at familiar figures in an Peirce as of the later Wittgenstein. unfamiliar manner. But, to Freud’s expression “the reading of “Categories, Pragmatism, and Language” narcissism of small differences,” we might add the (1961) incontestably reveals this. This essay appears to resolute refusal to acknowledge even the slightest be an attempt to work out some of the details of the degree of kinship. pragmatist conclusion of his doctoral dissertation: “our This might be a species of such narcissism. Any unbiased description of logical empiricism’s difficulties … suggest that we need to strive for the sort of rapproachment So, I persist in what can only appear to most readers as a between [sic.] formal logic, semiotics, and traditional perverse strategy. (Doth he protest too much? Are not epistemology my repeated disclaimers indications of my genuine – not Peirce”(1956, 573; cf. Gross 2003, 96-97). merely rhetorical or heuristic – perversity? That is of quickly he will have serious reservations about Peircean course something for my readers to decide.). Despite his semiotics denunciations of Peirce, Rorty can be portrayed as a (apparently, reservations about Peirce’s theories of signs Peircean. But a stronger claim can be made here. In the and of categories even before any about the theory of no which less is than found in traditional the work of But, very epistemology first instance, he actually was something of a Peircean. This contention is not derived from a strong misreading, but discoverable from a straightforward reading (what the later Rorty would disparagingly call a weak 40 26 In 1955, he published a very short piece in The Review of Metaphysics. Besides this and several also very short book reviews, “Categories, Pragmatism, and Language” is Rorty’s first publication (unqualifiedly, it is first published article). RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro knowledge). Looking back more than thirty years later, to address, say, the question of meaning or that or truth. hence, he will in “The Pragmatist’s Progress” confess to The relative merits of rival approaches, including literary having been a code-cracker (someone devoted to or rhetorical ones, need to be assessed first and discovering the hidden structures or forms underlying foremost in light of consequences. not only everyday language but also even the more rigorous forms of human discourse). “This ambition,” he As I have already stressed too many times, reading Rorty goes on to note, “led me to waste my twenty-seventh as a Peircean will likely strike, both Peirceans and and twenty-eighth years trying to discover the secret of Rortyeans (and, no doubt, various others), as perverse. I Charles Sanders Peirce’s esoteric doctrine of the ‘reality would be less than candid if I refused to acknowledge of Thirdness’ and thus of his fantastically elaborate this facet of my portrayal. But I insist: it is not simply semiotico-metaphysical ‘System’” (1992, 93). perverse. Indeed, I am disposed to believe it is both Peircean and Rortyean. A Wittgensteinian (or If therapeutic) pragmatist who never tires of warning us anything, the mature Rorty might be read as saying: Let’s against the distortions resulting from our craving for get on with the business of painstaking, honest inquiry generality is one who might be warmly welcomed by a and, in those disciplines where such inquiry seems Peircean pragmatist. mostly (if not entirely) beside the point, let’s turn to the Peirce after all insisted: “Broad generalization is glorious business recon- when it is the inevitable outpressed juice of painfully textualization, and renarration. Let’s be forthright about matured little details of knowledge; but when it is not the purposes animating our endeavors. And let’s not that, it a crude spirit inciting only broils between [or allow our antipathies, blindnesses, and misgivings to among] a hundred little dogmas, each most justly block the paths of those pursuing their inquiries condemning all the others” (CP 2,14). differently than we are. In these respects, Peirce was as adds: “It is the usual fruit of sloth.” So, too, a Peircean critical of his contemporaries as Rorty was of his. Spilling pragmatist who takes texts no less than lumps to be tons of ink on the possibility of knowledge does little or objects of interpretation. So let us now fast forward to the mature Rorty. of imaginative redescription, 27 In his “Minute Logic” (1902), He pointedly nothing to contribute to the growth of knowledge. Virtually everyone actually engaged in some substantive Everything is, as Peirce suggests, similar to everything inquiry finds the often technical debates among else in some respect(s). So I have done very little, if professional philosophers on epistemological topics of anything at all, in insisting upon resemblances between no relevance to what they are doing. Peirce and Rorty. “After all, any analogy, however fanciful, which serves to focus attention upon matters Peirce almost certainly would have taken Rorty to be a which might otherwise escape observation is valuable” litterateur into whose wretched clutches had fallen any (CP 3, 470). Is my analogy fanciful? Without question. number of critical terms (e.g., objectivity, rationality, and Is it nonetheless illuminating? This is, at least, an open truth). Susan Haack and others have ably defended question – a question opened by my strong misreading Peirce against the way in which these terms have been of a multifaceted philosopher. If I have picked Rorty up abused by this litterateur. But the voice of philosophy is more gently than has been the wont of most Peirceans, not so unequivocally and incontestably that of science as Peirce and some of his defenders insist. Literary philosophy can be a healthy corrective to unbridled efforts to transform philosophical reflection into a strictly scientific enterprise. There is more than one way 27 Here I am indebted to Jeffrey Stout who distinguishes between the prophetic and the therapeutic Rorty (see 2007, 10ff). Although I am somewhat more sympathetic to the prophetic side of Rorty’s philosophic persona than is Stout, I agree with him that the therapeutic Rorty makes the most unproblematic contribution to contemporary thought. 41 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro and if I have turned him around in my hand so a facet population who have ceased even looking for work), rarely seen catches an unaccustomed ray of light, then important to get things right but he was deeply skeptical the polemical spirit might give way to humane of philosophical defenses of objective truth. What are interpretation. we to make of this? In large part, the threat of skepticism both is and is not important. It is important a insofar as so many contemporary philosophers devote contemporary audience than any other pragmatist of his themselves to traditional epistemology and, hence, generation. Confronted with this fact, the impulse of divert, many Peirceans is to descry the state of philosophy and interesting questions, more genuine concerns. But this indeed culture: Rorty’s stature is, from their perspective, obsession should be treated therapeutically, not a function of our culture’s decadence and our discipline’s addressed directly. A metaphilosophical move, backwardness. Another response however might be to direct engagement in this particular game, should be try to understand why his texts resonate with intelligent, encouraged. imaginative, and passionate readers, especially youthful however, this threat is not serious, at least to those who ones. That is, it might be to begin with a question – to are engaged in the business of inquiry. begin truly with a question, not the facile pretense of a purposes, in some settings, the Rortyean manner of question and the secure presumption of an answer. deconstructing the dualisms between thought and thing, Even those who were close to Rorty, in some cases very language and reality, fact and value, might prove as close (e.g., Richard Bernstein, Robert Brandom, Jeffrey effective (or even more effective) than other strategies. Stout, and Cornel West) found him exasperating as well The point is (Is it not?) to turn philosophical attention as exhilarating, frustrating in his insouciant dismissals as away from the sterile questions of traditional debates, well as stunning in his dialectical finesse. But they found helping to direct such attention to more fruitful ways of him exhilarating, talented, sincere, and insightful. Are framing philosophical questions. Indeed, the very point we to say to those who knew him far better than most of of pragmatism is to expose endless verbal wrangling for us, “You are too indulgent and uncritical, allowing your what it is. The task of breaking the stranglehold of personal affection to color your philosophical judgment, verbalism – the compulsive tendency to become even to blind you from your intellectual responsibility”? completely absorbed in ferocious debates regarding little This seems all too slighting of them as well as Rorty. more than abstract definitions – is not only salutary but Richard Rorty spoke more persuasively to philosophical attention away from 28 more rather As the example of Peirce himself shows, For some also truly pragmatic. Moreover, I take Rorty to have So we might turn (or perhaps return) to the question, licensed me and others to turn aside in good conscience What use may I (and I precisely s a Peircean) make of from Rorty? Was Rorty rejecting the possibility of painstaking, philosophy and to do so for the purpose of indulging certain technical debates in professional honest inquiry of the kind championed by Peirce or rather was he (precisely in his role as ironist) questioning the actuality of philosophy being an instance of such inquiry? (Was Peirce any more charitable in his judgment of his contemporaries than Rorty was of his – in particular, was he more charitable in judging the philosophers of his day to be genuine inquirers than Rorty?). I have no question that Rorty knew that it was, in countless contexts (e.g., the number of civilians killed as “collateral damage” or the percentage of the 42 28 From the beginning of his career, Rorty was more or less preoccupied with metaphilosophy. See, e.g., “The Limits of Reductionism,” “Recent Metaphilosophy,” and even his comparison of Peirce and the later Wittgenstein (“Pragmatism, Categories, and Language,”). All three articles published in 1961 (i.e., at the outset of his career). One might even say that before he commenced his graduate studies at Yale University, while still a student of Richard McKeown, he was preoccupied with this topic. The extent to which Rorty is carrying on the project of McKeown is still an unasked, but (in my judgment) salient question. McKeon’s pluralism might have secured an afterlife in his most famous student’s work. RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro more humanly worthwhile impulses and interests, aims and sanctity of life before these pluralists came to force and obsessions. themselves on the rightful inhabitants of that walled city, destructive, real if only partial of the city itself. For Of course, the efficacy of any therapy is dependent on a many who identify as pragmatists or simply students of host of factors. What proves effective for this person pragmatism, Rorty is the “pragmatist” who has distorted might actually be harmful for some other person. The this position beyond anything James and Dewey (let difficulties are compounded when the philosophical alone Peirce) would recognize. For me, however, Rorty therapy question is almost always group therapy. will be, as much as anything else, the author of Different reactions are inevitable, variable outcomes “Pragmatism, predictable. For some of us there is often something too accordingly will be the one who led me from dispirited and despairing in Rorty’s denunciations and Wittgenstein to Peirce (or, more accurately, from my dismissals. youthful captivation with the later Wittgenstein to a For others of us, however, there is something exhilarating and liberating. among the former. I tend to be There are, however, various Categories, and Language.” 29 He deeper understanding of one of the most elusive figures in Western philosopher). In my own philosophical occasions when I have experienced, if somewhat meandering, this essay invited me to abandon fleetingly, what other readers have experienced far reservations and to explore more boldly possibilities of more often – the power of Rorty’s redescriptions to forging a disciplinary identity rooted in American transfigure the field of possibilities. My exasperation pragmatism, indeed, in Peirce’s distinctive articulation of with him tends to eclipse my exhilaration. But, more that philosophical framework. Though it was published than a decade ago, I made a deliberate decision not to fifty years ago, I discovered it over a decade later while write about Rorty in a dismissive or denunciatory just beginning my graduate studies. manner, if only because these tendencies were what I always assign when I teach Peirce, sometimes when I liked least about him. I resolutely refused then – and in teach Wittgenstein. In the concluding paragraph Rorty this essay I renew that resolution – to respond directly to readily acknowledged: “… I have been emphasizing his provocations. My hope is (among other tasks) to similarities between Peirce and Wittgenstein, and I have have engaged in a more or less random series of played down the differences between them. therapeutic interventions, ones wherein the link differences are real and important” (1961, 223). between rationality and persuasion is strengthened, also anything, the differences between Peirce and Rorty are, the tie between the irrepressible impulses of the at least, equally real and important. But they are very imagination and the typically exacting demands of hard to miss. In contrast, similarities or affinities have intelligence are made into a working harmony, an proven almost impossible to detect. This has seemed to effective union. be more a matter of impassioned refusal, than one of It is an essay I These If intellectual discernment (i.e., more a matter of will than For many, then, Rorty is the social philosopher who intelligence). makes the distinction between the public and private spheres of our lives into a regrettable and even As Whitehead (the teacher of several of Rorty’s own dangerous dualism. teachers, also the subject of his MA thesis) insisted, For many, he is the analytic philosopher who used his unrivalled rhetorical skills to build a Trojan horse to gain access into the walled city of professional philosophy, only to have a horde of pluralists stream from his construction. The result was, from the perspective of those enamored of the safety 29 Just as Wittgenstein’s On Certainty helped me to appreciate the force of Peirce’s critique of foundationalism, Rorty assisted me in discerning possible links between the later Wittgenstein and the American pragmatist whose thought (to my own amazement) began to draw me as a graduate student more strongly to it than did the thought of James or even Dewey. 43 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro philosophy “is not – or at least, should not be – a we submit to any authority other than that of our own ferocious irritable devising and refashioning without effacing ourselves, Truth is not a club with which without abandoning our freedom and betraying our to beat our opponents. It is rather a largely elusive ideal. humanity? Is this most anti-Cartesian of philosophers The inhumanity of all too many human inquirers toward unwittingly committed to a central tenet of the those with whom they disagree is all too prominent Cartesian framework, for does he not apparently feature of our intellectual history. The truth about truth espouse a self whose locus in nature is fundamentally is one thing, that about our advocacy of truth quite antagonistic and ruptured? another. However ennobling is the ideal in the abstract, Cartesianism requires a fuller recovery of human agency, the history of the crimes committed in the name of this in particular, a recovery in which authority, authorship, ideal is sobering, indeed chastening. Of course, one right and agency itself demand the prefix co-? readily object that Rorty rejects the very notion of truth, nature herself is in some manner and measure one of so such an appeal is out of place in reference to him. But the voices to whom humans ought to accord a hearing? am I not entitled to redescribe the Rortyean notion of On Rorty’s account, an extra-human authority is by coping in such a way that, in certain contexts, getting it definition self-annihilating (humanly self-annihilating). right is crucial for whatever we might mean by effective To speak of nature speaking is, from his perspective, to coping (cf. Stout 2007)? I do not think that the notion of deceive ourselves about our own acts of ventriloquism. debate between professors” (1937, 125). 30 [or among] What if the critique of 32 And what if 33 truth in its modest, experimental sense carries in its wake all or even most of the bad things which Rorty In light of what we know, also what we desire, a fuller supposed would inevitably trail it, if once allowed into recovery of nature, experience and indeed language, our discourse. If I am wrong and it does threaten to also practice, inquiry, and science, is needed. Reading embroil me in the endless verbal wrangling of a purely Wordsworth and Emerson, Goethe and Schiller might aid professional game, I will simply demure – and turn my us in this task as much as reading Descartes and Locke, attention elsewhere. I have seen how effective such a Leibniz and Hume, Kant and Hegel. If a choice must be move can be. made between rigor and range – the rigor of Is raising the question of truth inevitably that of raising the question of Truth and, in turn, is that move inescapably a case of reintroducing a surrogate for God? Perhaps. The question to which we are ultimately driven by Rorty’s project might just be one pertaining to religion (cf. Stout). Is Truth in the sense advocated by Peirce and others from (at least) his generation accurately interpreted as the surrogate of God? 30 31 Can Smith quotes this at the outset of his Presidential Address to the Eastern Division of the APA “The New Need for the Recovery of Philosophy”), a position made possible by Rorty’s parliamentary decision as President of that association (see Gross 2008, 220-22). 31 “Through the nineteenth century, men like Huxley and Clifford and Peirce still saw,” Rorty argues, “respect for scientific truth as the highest human virtue, the moral equivalent of the Christian’s love and fear of God. These nineteenth century figures were [Hans] Reichenbach’s heroes. But the nineteenth century also say the rise of a 44 new sort of secular intellectual, one who had lost faith in science with the same thoroughness as the Enlightenment had lost faith in God, [Thomas] Carlyle and Henry Adams are examples of this new kind of intellectual, the kind whose consciousness is dominated by a sense of the contingency of history, the contingency of the vocabulary which he himself is using, the sense that nature and scientific truth are largely beside the point and that history is up for grabs. This sort of intellectual is secular with a vengeance, for he sees the religion of ‘science’ or ‘of humanity’ as just as selfdeceptive as the old-time religion” (1982, 228-29). 32 In “The Essence of Humanism,” James argues humanism is “a religion susceptible of reasoned defense.” It is, so read, “essentially a social philosophy, a philosophy of ‘co,’ in which conjunctions do the work” (238). To conjoin humanity and nature, humans and other animals, mortal animals with their irrepressible longings and a sense of the sacred, is central to humanism so understood. 33 Rorty’s love of wild orchids might be taken as a sign of a more inclusive love of the natural world. His father’s poetry, some of the best of which involves a celebration of nature, is pertinent here. RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro philosophical discourse and the range of its legitimate nuanced topics – I would choose range. But no such choice is ancestors, proximate as well as remote. necessary. ambivalence toward my philosophical What rigor, clarity, and responsibility practically mean in diverse contexts is, however, a Accordingly, Rorty himself is for me not an object of matter to be worked out by the social actors trying to condescension, let alone one of scorn. Like those much cope with the complex demands defining these variable closer to him, I find him exasperating and admirable, contexts. That is, they must be worked out on the frustratingly insouciant and delightfully sane about the ground (the ground of our practices themselves), not on problems of men and women in our time and place. high. Quite apart from the most prominent features of my Indeed, for this task “poets” no less than scientists, 34 the mystically inclined no less than the personal attitude toward this philosophical elder, I am In appreciate that Rorty so greatly contributed to not only executing this task, Rorty will be both an ally and an the resurgence of pragmatism but also the recovery of impediment. His therapeutic and pluralist proclivities history (not least of all the history of his own discipline will assist and (at the same time) thwart our efforts. Yet, as relevant to the doing of philosophy). in turning once again to his writings, I on this occasion our histories are, they are inclusive of countless ironies. feel neither unqualified antipathy nor unalloyed Ruptures are hardly as ever as dramatic and deep as admiration. More than an exercise in perversity, this their advocates contend, critiques very rarely as undertaking has been for me an attempt, yet again, to thoroughgoing and conclusive as their fashioners achieve something approximate to ambivalence (Segal; suppose. Aristotle was almost certainly far more of a cf. Rorty). In response to such a strong “poet,” also such Platonist than he realized, Descartes far more of a a strong misreading of a philosophical author to whom I scholastic than he appreciated (see, e.g., Etienne Gilson have devoted my philosophical life, the achievement of on this score), and Peirce himself arguably more of a ambivalence should not be counted as a mean or Cartesian than this critique of Cartesianism was inclined insignificant accomplishment. to suspect. Might not Richard Rory, late as well as early, politically committed are themselves needed. Rather than bemused 36 Whatever else 35 condescension I feel the need to work toward a finely 34 A. N. Whitehead, the philosopher on whom Rorty wrote his MA thesis (“Whitehead’s Use of the Concept of Potentiality” [1952]), underscores the relevance of the voice of poetry to our appreciation of nature (see, e.g., 1967, 15, also 77). He wrote this thesis under the supervision of Charles Hartshorne, one of the editors of the first six volumes of Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. He wrote his PhD dissertation also on potentiality, under the supervision of Paul Weiss, the other editor of these volumes. Of relevance here, is Weiss’s “The Essence of Peirce’s System” (1940). Hartshorne, Weiss, and Richard McKeown were strenuous champions of systematic philosophy. See Justus Buchler’s “The Accidents of Peirce’s System” (1940). 35 The pragmatist … thinks,” Rorty contends, “that the quest for a universal human community will be selfdefeating if it tries to preserve the elements of every intellectual tradition, all the ‘deep’ intuitions everybody has ever had. It is not to be achieved by an attempt at commensuration, at a common vocabulary which isolates the common essence of Achilles and the Buddha, Lavoisier and Derrida. Rather, it is to be reached, if at all, by acts of making rather than of finding – by poetic rather than Philosophical achievement. The culture which will transcend, and thus unite, East and West … is not likely to be one which does equal justice to each, but one which looks back with the amused condescension typical of later generations looking back at their ancestors” (1982, xxx; emphasis added). 36 “Pragmatism is,” Rorty announced in 1961 in “Pragmatism, Categories, and Language,” “becoming respectable again. Some philosophers are still content to think of it as a sort of muddle-head first approximation to logical positivism. … But those who have taken a closer look have realized that the movement of thought here is more link a pendulum than like an arrow” (197). So the young Rorty set out to show “how Peirce was in advance of the positivism of his day and how close his views are to the present trends in philosophy which have arisen in reaction to the more sophisticated positivism of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and of the Vienna Circle.” Rorty in this essay goes so far as to claim, “Peirce’s thought envisaged, and repudiated in advance, the stages in the development of empiricism which logical empiricism represented” (197-98). To say in 1961 that pragmatism was becoming respectable again seems less an established fact that a Jamesian bid, an instance of courage and hope wherein faith in the fact may help to create the fact! 45 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro be more of a Peircean pragmatist than he would be epistemology, but rather try to free ourselves from the disposed to admit? But what’s the use of calling Rorty a notion that philosophy must center around the discovery Peircean? Of course, there is something misleading of a permanent framework of inquiry” (1979, 380). 37 It about this characterization. There is, as I have already decidedly makes a difference whether we take acknowledged, about hermeneutics or methodology to be the successor to portraying Rorty as a Peircean. So, then, what is the use epistemology (Rorty 1979, 380). This however might of calling him a Peircean? We are thereby thrust into a deflect attention from a point of agreement. Rather position to hear a strand in his voice otherwise inaudible than attempt to offer from on high a method or to his contemporary admirers and Peircean critics. But strategies of inquiry, it would be better (for those of us do we not run the risk of losing either Peirce’s voice or who have the training, temperament, and inclination) to Rorty’s – or indeed both in their singularity? Hardly. The engage, on the ground, in substantive inquiries unfolding differences are too numerous, important, and crucial for in some more or less recognizable philosophical tradition anyone to miss – so numerous, significant, and (cf. MacIntyre 2010). This is, for the most part, precisely fundamental that they almost render completely what Peirce did. It would at the same time be instructive implausible any suggestion of kinship. But irony might for those of a different intellectual temperament to serve to facilitate solidarity, suggesting moreover a dash reflect upon our practices of inquiry vis-à-vis other of contingency: Peirce is not necessarily opposed to undertakings (including imaginative literature and Rorty in all fundamental respects. Animated by the spirit religious rituals) (see, however, Haack). This is for the of playfulness, we might yet be able to see the most part what Rorty did. To open the space for a wide- relationship between Peirce and Rorty as being ranging and deep-cutting inquiry into not only inquiry otherwise than one of invincible opposition or absolute but also the full spectrum of human discourses seems to divergence. The fruits of doing so might be far from be either recognizably philosophy or (at the very least, to plentiful and hence far from sufficient to nourish us for recall the words of Wittgenstein in The Blue Book) “one any length of time. They may however be as sweet as of the heirs to the subject which used to be called they are scarce, as subtly delicious as they are widely ‘philosophy” (28). There is no compelling reason to deny overlooked. the right of those engaged in this undertaking to call also something perverse themselves philosophers (cf. Smith 1983, 242; quoted It is often missed that Peirce was no less than Dewey above). repulsed by epistemology (including the word itself). He tended to identify his project (or, at least, the heart of his project) as logic and, in turn, logic as a theory of inquiry (not an account of knowledge allegedly already in our possession or possibly never anything we could possibly attain). Willy-nilly we are thrust into processes of inquiry. In its most rudimentary and pervasive forms, this has nothing or little to do with our love of truth or of anything else; it has everything to do with impasses of our agency. The point of logic, as conceived by Peirce, was not to answer the skeptic, but to advance inquiry. In Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Rorty writes: “we should not try to have a successor subject to 46 37 This is arguably the main reason for what he takes to be Peirce’s philosophical project: “Peirce himself remained the most Kantian of thinkers – the most convinced that philosophy gave us an all-embracing ahistoric context in which every other species of discourse could be assigned its proper place and rank. It was just this Kantian assumption that there was such a context, and that epistemology or semantics could discover it, against which James and Dewey reacted. We need to focus on this reaction if we are to recapture a proper sense of their importance” (1982, 161). Thus, James and Dewey emerge as the heroes of Rorty’s renarration of the history of pragmatism, while Peirce is cast as the villain (cf. Bernstein in Saatkamp [ed.]). RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro with facilitating the growth of knowledge. In order to Conclusion conduct any inquiry, we assume that we know countless Peirce’s theory of signs was designed not simply to offer things. We cannot take the first step without doing so. a normative account of objective inquiry (though it was Some of the things we assume we know turn out in the fashioned primarily to provide just such an account). In course of inquiry to be not instances of knowledge at all. crafting his semeiotic, he was animated by the hope of The actual course of this or that passionate pursuit tends offering resources for nothing less than the full range of to expose some of them, often quite pivotal ones, as human articulation, discursive and otherwise. The field erroneous assumptions, unreliable beliefs. To attempt of philosophy might be even more encompassing than to go on those beliefs is to condemn ourselves to the one envisioned by Peirce, whereas the capacity of frustration (the failure to attain our purposes, to achieve this discipline to transform itself into a humanly useful or even simply approximate our aims). The point is not discourse about the full spectrum of human articulation to provide an abstract, formal definition of knowledge, might be far greater than Rorty was disposed to but a pragmatic, hence contextual clarification. acknowledge. invites would be a pragmatic clarification of (above all else) the explorations of fields quite removed from the main focus dispositional properties of epistemic agents no less than of his philosophical project (objective inquiry as investigated objects. It should always be a clarification paradigmatically experimental directly relevant to the task at hand. Hermeneutics is a sciences as physics, chemistry, geology, and to some site wherein questions of method and virtue might be extent biology), while Rorty’s manner of doing posed by practitioners for the sake of the growth of their philosophy suggests a relevance and power beyond what practices. Peirce’s theory illustrated in of such signs This he was disposed to grant at the meta-level (i.e., grant when he was philosophizing about philosophy itself). Philosophers pontificating from on high about the Philosophers should be inquirers who have devoted meaning of truth and meaning in, say, religious, themselves to some undertaking other than philosophy scientific, or literary discourse tend to be as convincing and, as maturity, experience, and possibly even wisdom as celibate pontiffs speaking ex cathedra about sexual are acquired in the course of having done so, should only morality. Cannot Rorty’s therapeutic interventions in 38 or contemporary philosophy be read as more or less Hegel, Leibniz or Schröder, as a historically self-conscious effective efforts to drive home this basically Peircean participant in an intergenerational community of point? (One cannot determine their efficacy überhaupt.) resolutely experimental inquirers. Discoursing about the Regarding established fields of experimental inquiry, the practices of inquiry apart from extended participation in lot of practitioners on the inevitably shifting ground of some historically evolved and evolved practice (or, even their own practices reflecting upon how to go on, better, set of such practices) is a suspect undertaking. especially in the face of disciplinary crises, (the lot of Peircean inquirers are not – or should not be – practitioners in this regard) is one thing. preoccupied with offering a justification of knowledge in of the abstract (i.e., in abstraction from the history of our unquestionable practices); rather they are – or should be – concerned responsible debate is, however, quite another. then feel entitled to join Aristotle or Kant, Scotus deracinated intellectuals right to legislate 39 The position presuming the terms the of 39 38 In his response to Susan Haack, Rorty makes a very important point, moreover a distinctively Peircean one: “it is hard to see Duns Scotus as more or less open to questions of justification than Darwin, even though his views about what beliefs were relevant to what other beliefs were quite different” (152-53). See MacIntyre’s “Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narratives, and the Philosophy of Science.” This piece originally appear in The Monist,60 (1977), 453-71, was thereafter reprinted in Paradigms and Revolutions (1980), a volume edited by Gary Gutting, and more recently has been included in The Tasks of Philosophy (MacIntyre 2006). 47 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro If I have disregarded at least half of Rorty in sketching Our often warranted exasperation might have taken this ironic portrait, he has provided me with the example various forms, not simply shrill ridicule or especially 40 If I in what can caustic ripostes. It might have taken the form of playful only strike some as an excessively conciliatory spirit have irony, specifically in offering an ironic portrait of this betrayed Peirce’s more pugnacious tendencies, I can somewhat Protean figure, but a portrait offered as a invoke his own words as central to my inspiration. Did sincere expression of philosophical friendship. and, thereby, the license to do just this. not the youthful Peirce himself castigate inhumanity of the polemic spirit” (W 1, 5)? 41 44 “the In any Is the fun to be had in refuting Richard Rorty truly event, the love of truth demands us to be more truthful greater than that of redescribing him as a Peircean? Is it about how mixed, often how violent, is our love of truth greater in narrating a straightforward, serious – all too or anything else. Here as elsewhere we are likely to be serious – account of pragmatism than in renarrating the “blind to our own blindness” (CP 6.560). We might profit complex history of Rorty’s therapeutic interventions in from refusing to treat each other as knaves, or fools, or this evolving tradition? These therapeutic interventions dupes, or charlatans, or sophists. 42 45 The treatment which are, after all, more often than not helpful reminders of a shy, brilliant, stubborn, witty, and imaginative thinker what might without too much distortion be read as received at the hands of other philosophers seems to me Peircean points or warnings. In general, a bit of fun does 43 indeed help thought and also tends to keep it pragmatic too often to have been a disgrace to our discipline. (CP 5.71). 46 Might not Peircean playfulness encompass a 40 Again, I encourage readers to consult John E. Smith’s playful distinction between rorty and Rorty cleverly modeled on Rorty’s own distinction between philosophy and Philosophy. The ability to have deep misgivings about Rorty while having pragmatic sympathy with rorty seems clearly to signal (to use once again Segal’s expression) the achievement of ambivalence. 41 “These reflections [on Errare est hominis],” writes Peirce when he was not yet twenty-one, “should teach us the inhumanity of the polemical spirit and should teach us still to revere a great man notwithstanding his mistakes.” But they also argue for the identification of intellectual error with moral perversion: “The fact is, essential error can only arise from perversion, from wickedness, or from passion. Sincere and philosophic production have no other falsity than that which is inseparable from every human proposition” (W 1, 5). The conviction that this is so prompts us to question the motives of those whom we regard as essentially wrong, not just challenge the strength of their arguments or the reasonableness of their positions. Aye, here’s the rub. 42 Here, once again, it is instructive to recall Kuhn’s remark to his friend and colleague regarding the conduct of philosophers: 43 Rorty hated bullies. (This of course does not preclude the possibility of this individual playing, in some respects and situations, precisely this role. My own take, however, is that he mostly avoids unwittingly replicating the role he most despised.) He appears to have been at a young age the target of their malevolence, a situation made especially complex for a boy who has not small for his age. He was also a child who loved to explore nature on his own. One of his professors at Yale worried that the bashful graduate student might actually bolt from the room when first assigned the task of teaching. Rorty’s father rather cruelly told his son, as a late 48 adolescent, that he had no talent for literary fiction. Nothing reductive is intended by assembling these biographical fragments. But, in some small measure, they might illuminate certain marked tendencies in Rorty’s philosophical persona. 44 Though I did not know Rorty well, I did know him. Moreover, I liked him a great deal. A colleague and I had lunch with him the last time he visited my university, not long before he died. On this occasion, I was reminded, once again, why I found him so likable and exasperating. 45 “The work of the philosopher consists,” Wittgenstein remarks in the Investigation, “in assembling reminders for a particular purpose” (I, #127). The extent to which philosophers, including most self-avowed pragmatists, need to be reminded of their implicit satisfaction with abstract, formal definitions – hence, their failure to feel the need for pragmatic, contextual clarifications (framed explicitly in terms of dispositional properties of objects and deliberately cultivated dispositions of agents) – is a measure of the extent to which the spirit (indeed, simply the letter) of Peirce has not been internalized by them. 46 In “Thinking Cheerfully,” James Ryerson observed: Rorty’s gambit “placed him under pressure to project a certain attitude: unfazed, affable, confident.” Perhaps the deepest spilt in Rorty’s intellectual persona is evident right here. “With his heartfelt expressions of and his gift of blithely shrugging off criticism, on the printed page Rorty could be quite convincing at this. So it was striking to discover that he did not convey this lightness of tone in person. Few persons who heard him speak failed to remark on the contrast between the buoyancy of his written persona and his slightly depressive and weary mien. His friend and fellow philosopher Daniel Dennett once told me that Rorty reminded him of Eeyore, the gloom stuffed donkey from RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro measure of Rortyean irony, might not also the ironic portraitist be himself a subject for ironic portrayal, the uncompromising champion of strong misreading an occasion for a strong misreading? In turn, might not Peirce’s periodic failures to move beyond abstract definitions and advance toward truly pragmatic clarifications be candidly acknowledged, might also not the endless wrangling at the level of formal definition fostered by avowed Peirceans be seen for what it is – a betrayal of Peirce’s pragmaticism, not an appropriate defense of a pragmatic orientation too often honored in word and disregarded in practice? So let us translate our all too verbal quarrels into practical terms having directly to do with what at this historical juncture the defining exigencies of our evolving practices. In so doing, we would be following the sage advice of a Peircean pragmatist who ironically failed to see himself as such. ‘Winnie-the-Pooh.’” Ryerson seems to me insightful when he concludes by suggesting, Rorty “carried some unspoken burden or sorrow, as if, however liberating it might be to live without the idea of The Way Things Are, it could be hard to let it go.” Whether or not this was truly the source of Rorty’s burden or sorrow, it was difficult in his presence not to sense at least something akin to sorrow. References Mats. 2009. Peirce’s Philosophy of Communication: The Rhetorical Underpininnings of the Theory of Signs. London: Continuum. Bernstein, Richard J. 1992a. “The Resurgence of Pragmatism.” Social Research, 59, 4, 814-40. ----------. 1992b. The New Constellation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ----------. 2010. The Pragmatic Turn. NY: Polity. Bosco, Nynfa. 2000. “Prefazione” to Maddaelna’s La lotta delle tradizioni, 9-17 Buchler, Justus. 1940. “The Accidents of Peirce’s System.” The Journal of Philosophy, XXXVII, 264-69. Cavell, Stanley. 2010. Little Did I Know: Excerpts from Memory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Colapietro, Vincent. 1998. “Transforming Philosophy into a Science: A Debilitating Chimera or a Realizable Desideratum?” ACPQ, LXXII, 2 (Spring), 245-78 ----------. 2000. “Postfazione” to Maddalena’s La lotta delle tradizioni. 165-79. ----------. 2004. “Portrait of an Historicist: An Alternative Reading of Peircean Semiotic.” Semiotiche [Ananke: Torino, Italia], 2 (maggio), 49-68. ----------. 2006. “Tradition, Dialectic, and Ideology.” ACPQ, 80, 2, 253-66. Eco, Umberto. 1992. Interpretation and Overinterpretation, ed. Stefan Collini. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fisch., Max H. 1976. “The Critic of Institutions.” The Owl of Minerva, ed. Charles J. Bontempo and S. Jack Odell. NY: McGraw-Hill. Foucault, Michel. 1994. Ethics, volume I of Essential Works of Foucault, ed. Paul Rabinow. NY: The New Press. Haack, Susan. 1995. “Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect.” Rorty and Pragmatism: A Philosopher Responds to His Critics, ed. Herman J. Saatkamp, Jr. (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press), 126-47. ----------. 2008. Putting Philosophy to Work: Inquiry and Its Place in Culture. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Hocking, William Ernest. 1991 [1940]. “Dewey’s Concepts of Experience and Nature.” Later Works of John Dewey, volume 14, 411-26. Gross, Neil. 2003. “Richard Rorty’s Pragmatism: A Case Study in the Sociology of Ideas.” Theory and Society, 32, 1, 93-148. Bergman, 49 RICHARD RORTY AS PEIRCEAN PRAGMATIST: A N I R O N I C P O R T R A I T A N D S I N C E R E E X P R E S S I O N O F P H I L O S O P H I C A L F R I E N D S H I P Vincent Colapietro ----------. 2008. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. James, William. 1975 [1909]. The Meaning of Truth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1985. “Relativism, Power, and Philosophy.” Proceedings and Addresses of the APA, 59, 1 (September), 5-22. ----------. 2006. The Tasks of Philosophy [Selected Essays, volume 1]. NY: Cambridge University Press. ----------. 2010. “On Not Knowing Where One Is Going.” Proceedings and Addresses of the APA (November), 84, 2, 61-74. Maddalena, Giovanni. 2000. La lotta delle tradizioni: MacIntyre e la filosofia in America. Dronero, Italia: Edizioni L’Arciere Mora, Ferrater. 1955. “Peirce’s Conception of Architectonic and Related Views.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 15, 3 (March), 351-59. Peirce, Charles S. 1931-58. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cited as CP. ----------. 1982. Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, ed. Peirce Edition Project (Max H. Fisch, Gnereal Editor). Blooming, IN: Indiana University Press. Cited as W 1. Perry, R. B. 1935. The Thought and Character of William James. Boston: Rorty, Amelie Oskenberg. “Dependency, Individuality, and Work” in Ruddick and Daniels (eds.). Rorty, Richard. 1956. “The Concept of Potentiality.” Ph.D. Dissertation (Yale University). Advisor: Paul Weiss. ----------. 1961. “Pragmatism, Categories, and Language.” The Philosophical Review, 70, 2, 197-223. ----------. 1992. “The pragmatist’s progress.” Interpretation and Overinterpretation, ed. Stefan Collini, 89-108. ----------. 2004. “Philosophy as a Traditional Genre.” Pragmatism, Critique, Judgment: Essays for 50 Richard J. Bernstein, ed. Seyla Benhabib and Nancy Fraser (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 328. ----------. 2007. “The Fire of Life.” Poetry Magazine ----------. 2005. “How many grains make a heap?” th Review of Philosophical Analysis in the 20 Century, volumes 1 & 2, by Scott Soames. London Review of Books 27, 2 (January 20), pp. 12-13. Ruddick, Sara and Pamela Daniels (eds.). 1977. Working It Out. NY: Pantheon Books. Ryerson, James. 2007. “Thinking Cheerfully” [Essay]. NY Times Book Review (July 22, 2007), Saatkamp, Jr., Herman J. 1995. Rorty and Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Segal, Hanna. 1991. “The Achievement of Ambivalence.” Common Knowledge, 1 (Spring), 92-103. Short, T. L. 2008. “Peirce on Science and Philosophy.” Philosophical Topics, 36, 1 (Spring), 259-77. Smith, John E. 1983. The Spirit of American Philosophy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. ----------. 1992. America’s Philosophical Vision. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Soames, Scott. Letter to Editor [Response to RR’s review th of Philosophical Analysis in the 20 Century] LRB Stout, Jeffrey. 2004. Democracy and Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ----------. 2007. “On Our Interest in Getting Things Right: Pragmatism without Narcissism.” New Pragmatists, ed. Cheryl Misak (NY: Oxford), 731. Weiss, Paul. 194. “The Essence’s of Peirce’s System.” Journal of Philosophy, XXXVII, 253-264. Whitehead, A. N. 1967 [1925]. Science and the Modern World. NY: Free Press. ----------. 1937. Adventures of Ideas. NY: Macmillan. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1965. The Blue and Brown Books. Ny: Harper & Row. PUTTING PRAGMATISM INTO BETTER SHAPE: to be more accurate and philosophically serviceable RORTY AND JAMES interpretations. Alan Malachowski (University of Stellenbosch, 3. Rorty’s own version of pragmatism has attracted some alanmalachowski@hotmail.com) enthusiastic supporters. But it has, at the same time, both alienated those who favour other versions and I think Dewey and James are the best guides to reinforced some of the basic concerns of many who are understanding the modern world that we’ve got, suspicious of pragmatism per se. and that it’s a question of putting pragmatism into better shape after thirty years of super- Clearly, there is good deal of common ground between professionalism. these themes. They all indicate that Rorty’s relationship to pragmatism is a controversial one – celebrated by Richard Rorty 1 some, contested by others. They also suggest that much of the controversy surrounding Rorty is caused by overlapping tensions between (a) his construal of classic pragmatist thinking and more orthodox conceptions, (b) One of the most important and surprising developments his version of pragmatism and other versions, and (c) in recent philosophy has been the great revival of pragmatism, however defined, and other forms of interest in pragmatism. And, no one has done more to philosophy. To sort out these intertwined tensions in generate that revival than Richard Rorty. The historical detail and then distinguish between the negative and story that embeds Rorty’s role is a complex one, and it is positive consequences is far too big a task for a single, still unfolding. Nevertheless, it is worth risking brief article. But, an instructive start can be made by oversimplification to highlight three themes that any exploring how the above themes play out in the case of worthwhile account needs to acknowledge: Rorty’s handling of one of the classic pragmatists he 2 3 deeply respected; namely, William James. 1. The notoriety of the philosophical context within which Rorty has invoked the ideas and thinkers of At first blush, Rorty’s notoriety factor is less significant in pragmatism has itself helped draw more attention to his dealings with James than it is in his approach to the those ideas and thinkers. Some claim this can only be a other founding figures Peirce and Dewey. In the case of good thing. Others believe it is highly regrettable. Peirce, Rorty’s flippant denial of his importance and a 2. Rorty’s interpretations of the work of pragmatism’s I choose James because so much has already been written about Rorty’s appropriation of Dewey and Peirce is a special case for which I do not have sufficient expertise to adequately comment on. 4 See Rorty’s famously provocative comment in ‘Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism’: “[Peirce’s] contribution to pragmatism was merely to have given it a name, and to have stimulated James;” reprinted in Consequences of Pragmatism, Richard Rorty, Harvester: Sussex, 1982, p.162. The story behind Rorty’s turn against Peirce, on whom he had once expended a good deal of time and energy, has yet to be told. My hunch is that Rorty simply couldn’t find anything useful to do with Peirce. At any rate, those critics who constantly try to catch Rorty out on textual grounds alone should, for reasons explained in the body of the main article here, make more effort to engage him on pragmatic terms (i.e. 4 founders have encouraged fresh interest in them and yet also provoked vigorous defences of what are contended 1 ‘From Philosophy to Post-Philosophy: An Interview with Richard Rorty’; reprinted in The Rorty Reader, Christopher J.Voparil and Richard Bernstein (eds), WileyBlackwell:New York, 2010, p.294. 2 I say “surprising” because although Carnap, Quine, and others ensured that the flame of pragmatism would keep gently burning despite the attempts of early critics to snuff it out, it was difficult to predict that that flame would suddenly start burning so brightly and generate so much heat. 3 P U T T I N G P R A G M A T I S M I N T O B E T T E R S H A P E : R O R T Y A N D J A M E S Alan Malachowski tendency to set him firmly aside when discussing further developed. Again, Rorty’s notoriety is causally pragmatism seem to have galvanised a counter- instrumental. movement. Stung by what they regard as Rorty’s neglectful and uncomprehending attitude, members of With regard to James, Rorty neither gives him the this back-to-Peirce movement have been busy elevating philosophical cold shoulder, as he does with Peirce, nor his status as a pragmatist. And in doing so, they have affords his work the fairly systematic refashioning he often argued that the best, if not the only viable, form of conjoured up for Dewey. His approach is engaged, but pragmatism has to follow the path originally carved out at the same time piecemeal. And as such, it exemplifies a by Peirce. This path by-passes Rorty’s contribution to general feature of his overall connection to classic pragmatist studies, considering it to be no more than an pragmatism that is frequently overlooked, and one that aberrant interlude. No doubt there are, as well, a few is, as a result, the cause of much misguided criticism. haters who have turned to Peirce simply on the principle Rorty greatly admires James, but views him as source of that he must have something interesting to say if Rorty “suggestive ideas” rather than a purveyor of doctrine wants us to avoid him. and method. This means that he turns to Jame’s writings 7 8 for inspiration rather than detailed philosophical With Dewey, things are somewhat different. Though guidance, for colourful sketches of future possibilities there are also key similarities. He is the dominant figure rather than accurate maps of existing terrain.. And for in Rorty’s thinking about pragmatism. Hence, there are that reason, we have to be careful in assessing Rorty’s no grounds for any straightforward charge of neglect. use of those writings. To accuse him of textual infidelity Furthermore, by making Dewey one of the three heroes when we have not understood the grounds on which 5 of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Rorty has Rorty appeals to James can be a big mistake. undoubtedly stirred up greater interest in someone who, despite his historical stature, seemed to have fallen off 6 Those who are annoyed by what they see as Rorty’s the philosophical horizon. But, there is also a parallel irresponsible with Peirce in the sense that Rorty’s approach to Dewey, undoubtedly baulk at the very idea that he should be let although it is not dismissive, provokes hostile reactions. off the hook because he is acting under the constraints Many Rorty’s of inspiration alone. And, they will be right if they do so. interpretation of Dewey because it severely downplays For such constraints amount to no constraints at all. By his attachments to experience, metaphysics and itself, the notion of inspiration is entirely permissive. scientific method. The upshot has additional affinities But, there is more to it than that. Rorty’s relationship to with Rorty’s treatment of Peirce: some have been James, our case in point, is contrained by three persuaded to take Dewey more seriously or at least give interdependent factors: inspiration, practical utility and his work a fair hearing when it would otherwise have the task of “putting pragmatism into better shape”. been ignored and others have been persuaded that if When viewed against that more complex background, Dewey is to be taken seriously, then the aspects of his rather than reprehensible, Rorty’s attempts to bend work that Rorty abandons must be reincorporated and James’ words out of their original shape can seem commentators take issue with reading of pragmatist texts will perfectly acceptable, or even laudable,. show, in concrete detail, just why a Peirce-based pragmatism is more useful than the version Rorty offers). 5 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Richard Rorty, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1979. 6 The same could be said for other figures. Rorty certainly stirred up interest in Hegel and Heidegger amongst analytic philosophers at least. 52 7 The key, but still very controversial, text remains ‘Dewey’s Metaphysics’; reprinted in Consequences of Pragmatism, op.cit. pp.72-79. 8 The phrase is Thayer’s; see Meaning and Action: A nd Critical History of Pragmatism, 2 edition, Hackett: Indianapolis, 1981, p.xviii). P U T T I N G P R A G M A T I S M I N T O B E T T E R S H A P E : R O R T Y A N D J A M E S Alan Malachowski Were Rorty to put forward some dubious claim simply More contentious is Rorty’s attempt to make James the on the grounds that James inspired him to make it, then inspiration for ditching empiricism in total. Critics find if the dubious element was clearly absent in the relevant this distasteful because it tries to turn James into a texts, he would not have a leg to stand on when critics modern-day anti-epistemologist when they believe he voiced the objection that he was being grossly unfair to clearly saw himself as working within the empiricist James. However, Rorty does not work like that. tradition, though pushing it to its utmost limits. This Inspiration is important and its role should not be James fits snugly into the Locke, Berkeley, Hume underestimated. Rorty is, after all, someone who argues tradition and is therefore grudgingly admired by Russell that the imagination rather than rational argument is, even as he denigrates James’s own pragmatism. Rorty and should be, the primary vehicle of significant cultural takes James at his word about wanting to expand the change. For such change requires new ways of thinking empiricist tradition, but claims he did not push far and speaking, and generally these cannot normally be enough: taken to its limit, empiricism eliminates itself. acquired simply by pushing further along the tracks And here, the other constraints are important. For the 9 pure story that Rorty needs to tell about this cannot be just inspiration can only lead to chaos or a cultural void. And, any old story. It has to be useful and feed into a version this is where Rorty’s interwoven constraints come into of pragmatism that is sufficiently contemporary. already constructed by reason. However, play. Insipiration does not provide a blank pragmatic check. It has to produce cultural artifacts about which a Rorty uses Davidson as collateral inspiration to shore up narrative can be told that rationalises their relationship his approach to James. When Davidson erases the to the original source in terms of practical utility. So, for boundary between knowing our way about a language example, if Rorty claims that James has inspired him to and knowing our way about the world, he thereby shows quit trying to produce a general account of truth then to us how to dispense with problematic intermediaries. square this with James’s own talk of a ‘theory of truth’, These include ideas and experience, the lynchpins of he needs to tell a story that shows why it makes useful traditional empiricism. The story Rorty wishes to weave sense to take this stance on the basis of reading James. around his attempt to extract James from the empiricist Much of Rorty’s discussion of truth involves constructing tradition is one that tries to show us that what he says just such a story, one that frequently touches base with about topics such as knowledge, truth, and our James in order to acknowledge a source of inspiration. relationship to the world is far more useful to us now if As it stands, this is a mundane example, but one worth we imagine he not only aborts his attempts to formulate kicking off with because controversy is unlikely to muddy a non-dualistic conception of experience, one that the main point of it (I am assuming that even though he somehow bridges the supposed gap between its content used the term, James was not really all that interested in and the world, but stops making reference to experience 10 building or expounding a full-blooded theory of truth ). philosophically essential. 11 9 It important to note that Rorty cashes out the imagination in terms of a propensity to discover new ways of talking rather than just fresh images. 10 Putnam is persuasive on this last point; see, for example, ‘James’s Theory of Truth’, Hilary Putnam, in The Cambridge Companion to William James, Ruth Anna Putnam (ed.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997, pp.166-185. James used the phrase “theory of truth” sparingly (e.g. “What I have said of the theory of truth will, I am sure, have appeared obscure and unsatisfactory ot most of you by reason of brevity”; in Pragmatism and The Meaning of Truth, Harvard University Press: Cambridge Mass., 1975 p.37). 11 Rorty also argues that James makes the mistake of conflating the linguistic and the psychological when appealing to experience, but does not elaborate on what this amounts to; see ‘Dewey Between Hegel and Darwin’; reprinted in Truth and Progress Philosophical Papers Volume Three, Richard Rorty, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1998, p.295. 53 P U T T I N G P R A G M A T I S M I N T O B E T T E R S H A P E : R O R T Y A N D J A M E S Alan Malachowski Experience is not something that Rorty finds intrinsically 12 one James worth discussing, the James that emerges It is certain accounts of its nature that from an historically-sensitive reading of his texts that worry him, primarily because they flow from an situates him within the empiricist tradition, will scoff at historically influential picture of how human beings are all this. Their James, being a product of his own time and related to the world that he believes is now defunct. This place, cannot be persuaded of anything that does not is the ubiquitous Cartesian picture in which minds are logically follow from his explicitly stated beliefs and receptacles for ideas that either represent or fail to intentions. To claim that he could be persuaded to represent how things are in the world at large. Rorty update his pragmatism by accepting (1) and (2) is to argues that the Cartesian picture has been systematically indulge in wild speculation. If he could leap outside his dismantled since the middle of the twentieth century. time and place to go in that direction who is to say that He takes from Sellars, for example, the lesson that he might not leap to somewhere else that gives him experience has no natural epistemic properties: we access to a radically different philosophical perspective, cannot read off from the bare content of an experience one that attracts him even more? problematic. anything that qualifies as knowledge. And, he considers Wittgenstein to have exploded the notion that At first sight, there does seem to be an awkward tension experience is essentially private, something that only here between Rorty’s own Hegelian historicism that occurs behind the closed doors of the mind. What he stresses the importance of time and place and his tries to do with James, is keep the holistic thrust of his profligate inclination to bend historical figures into pragmatist message intact, but update it by bleeding in shapes that suit his own present purposes. But, the the results of the philosophical progress that has been tension is resolved by Rorty’s resolute, and entirely made since the linguistic turn. Rorty’s James is thus consistent, efforts to make everything subservient to someone who has learned to link truth to language pragmatic constraints. Yes, James set great store by rather than experience: experience and is in certain ways enthusiastic about science. Dewey’s and James’s attempts to give a “more concrete”, more holistic, and less dualism-ridden account of experience would have been unnecessary if they had not tried to make “true” a predicate of experience and had instead let it 13 be a predicate of sentences. But if, going along with Rorty, we think of James’s writings and his related beliefs as a set of tools for coping with the world, then we may find that he is more useful to us when we throw away some of his favourite devices and modify others in the light of more This James can easily be persuaded to endorse Rorty’s two main recommendations for putting pragmatism into better shape: (1) stop talking about experience and talk about language instead and (2) stop regarding science as a discipline that philosophy should strive to emulate. 15 14 Historical purists, those who believe that there is only recent tool-making innovations. This is equivalent to putting some classic Greek pillars in a modern building or splicing a chunk of Miles Davis into a Mahler symphony. When such counter-intuitive experiments work, purist objections are beside the point. To his credit, Rorty never tries to pass off his interpretations of historical figures as historically accurate readings. Nor should they 12 Some critics seem to assume that in rejecting the classic pragmatist’s empiricist dependence on experience, Rorty is somehow denying the value of experience in general. Clearly this is wrong. 13 ‘Dewey Between Hegel and Darwin’, in Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume Three, Richard Rorty, op.cit., p.298. 14 Rorty’s beef is not with science itself, but with attempts to elevate it to the pinnacle of intellectual disciplines as something that should be emulated by other disciplines. 54 be criticised as such. Given James’s open-mindedness and generosity of spirit, it does not stretch the imagination too much to think of him endorsing Rorty’s 15 In divesting James of scientistic inclinations, Rorty has far less work to do than he does with regard to Dewey who was enamoured of scientific method. James’s enthusiasm for science amounted to little more than rhetorical garnish on his philosophical pursuits. P U T T I N G P R A G M A T I S M I N T O B E T T E R S H A P E : R O R T Y A N D J A M E S Alan Malachowski lively attempts to make his work more useful. As for but nevertheless find it hard not to be far more those who want to polish an accurate image of James to interested in what Rorty is up to. be kept in the museum of ideas, we can reasonably envisage that James would have some respect for that 55 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL another of John Dewey’s most passionate champions, POLITICS: echoes the complaint: ON THE DEWEYAN DEPOSIT IN RORTY’S PRAGMATISM Having labored hard to figure out what Dewey had to say, we strenuously object when Rorty tries to get him to say things he did not say and that we cannot imagine him saying. Thus, over the last several years historians such as James Kloppenberg and I have found ourselves participating with Rorty in conferences in which our role is to say to him, often repeatedly, ‘Gee, that argument that you say that you and Dewey make is very provocative, but Dewey never made it and I do not believe he ever would make it since it is at odds with arguments he did 2 make.’ (Westbrook 2005, 175) David Rondel (Ryerson University, davidrondel@yahoo.com) Introduction Placing John Dewey in the narrative of the roots of Richard Rorty’s philosophy is not as straightforward an undertaking On Westbrook’s view, Rorty “borrow[s] very selectively from as one might initially suppose. While it is certainly true that Dewey’s philosophy” thus enabling him to “link pragmatism Dewey and Rorty held several philosophical theses in to more fashionable currents of thought and thereby earn common, of which a shared repudiation of epistemological Dewey a second look among the fashionably inclined.” foundationalism was probably the most noteworthy, the (Westbrook 2005, xiin9) exact nature and extent of their philosophical camaraderie is borrowed selectively from just about everyone from whom 1 3 It might be replied that Rorty a question of (sometimes) hot scholarly debate. And while he was a borrower: “selective borrowing” is simply what it is also true that Dewey was  at least by Rorty’s own Rorty did with the philosophers and books he read. frequent insistence  the philosopher who most embodied Controversially, and to the aggravation of many critics, Rorty the role of mentor and forefather to Rorty’s exciting brand bestowed upon an oddly diverse lot of figures the title of of neopragmatism, a significant number of Dewey scholars honorary Rortyan pragmatist. Rorty became notorious for have been stubbornly reluctant to grant the authenticity of compiling lengthy litanies of names, each of whom, his such insistences. They see Rorty as having distorted or readers were assured, advanced more or less the same misread Dewey in a number of crucial ways, as having arguments and held more or less the same positions. As Jay attributed to him many beliefs and theses that, they say, Rosenberg expressed this common criticism, “Rorty is the Dewey never held. Larry Hickman sounds the general great mentioner. He doesn’t just drop names; he sprays complaint when he writes, “Rorty may describe himself as a them, scatters them, hurls them about.” (Rosenberg 1993, ‘follower’ of Dewey…but his Dewey is not one that I am able 197) Rorty has been accused more than once of to recognize.” (Hickman 2007, 59) Robert Westbrook, misrepresenting the heroes of his canon. That Dewey should be among the misrepresented is neither surprising nor particularly noteworthy. 1 Nevertheless, I regard the following rundown of some of the theses and ideas Rorty and Dewey held in common as more or less uncontroversial. Both Dewey and Rorty were thoroughgoing anti-foundationalits; both powerfully repudiated a representationalist conception of knowledge and the “epistemology industry” that thrives on it; both men were committed naturalists (though, there are some important differences here in how “naturalism” is understood); both put great stress on the promotion of a decidedly “Darwinian” understanding of things; both were historicists (at times of an admittedly romantic or “Hegelian” stripe), and “public philosophers” on a certain understanding of that term; both were ardent defenders of liberal democracy (yet, here again, there are important differences). One might also mention certain commonalities arising from their shared disinclination toward religion, their distaste of Marxism, and so on. 2 “It is important to stress,” Westbrook also points out, rightly, “that Rorty’s pragmatist lineage, particularly from Dewey, is in important respects uncontestable” (Westbrook 2005, 145n17). 3 It is appropriate to point out that Hickman and Westbrook, while no doubt impatient with aspects of his appropriation of Dewey, have plenty of complimentary things to say about Rorty. Both are quick to admit that reading Rorty is an exciting, worthwhile, and fruitful undertaking. This is an important point to make, I think, because many “Deweyan” critics of Rortyan pragmatism begin and end their praise of Rorty with the colorless observation that Rorty performed a useful service by reigniting an interest in Dewey  by making pragmatism (semi) respectable again among professional philosophers. ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel The plausibility of Rorty’s many proclamations about “We philosopher” (Rorty 1998a, 10n5), a highly professionalized Deweyans” will not be my concern here. It will be enough, I Princeton professor, and the author of tightly argued papers think, to mention in passing that an erroneous extremism on specialist’s topics in the philosophy of mind bearing titles can be found on both sides of the question. On the one like, “In Defense of Eliminative Materialism,” “Incorrigibility hand, there is no doubt some validity to the criticism that as the Mark of the Mental,” and “Functionalism, Machines, Rorty habitually overlooked or glossed over many important and Incorrigibility”. differences between himself and Dewey. Indeed, one could analytic philosophy as it was then practiced in many of the rather easily get the impression from reading his books and leading American philosophy departments pointed the way essays that, on Rorty’s view, there was in the end extremely forward and he did his very best to digest as much of it as he  6 The early Richard Rorty believed that naive could. The “late” Richard Rorty in contrast was a world “metaphysical” moments notwithstanding  on which the famous man of letters, someone whose reputation and two men did not see eye to eye. And yet, on the other hand, influence was felt far outside the narrow confines of it is also true that many critics over-accentuate the professional analytic philosophy. Writing on an eclectic differences and under-appreciate the commonalities. Again, variety of topics, in a vivid but accessible prose, this was the one could easily come away with the false impression from Richard Rorty who was labeled by Harold Bloom “the most some of the critical literature on Rorty written by self- interesting philosopher in the world”. little some of Dewey’s occasional and 4 professed “Deweyans” that the claimed links between Rortyan and Deweyan pragmatism is nothing more than a If it is true then that Richard Rorty had, for lack of another big mistake, the product of little more than Rorty’s delusion. way to put it, two different careers as a professional The truth in this case is to be found somewhere in the philosopher, it is also true that Dewey, while scarcely middle: there is an important and unique legacy that Rorty mentioned in the first career, comes to occupy the inherits from Dewey, even if Rorty sometimes exaggerated significant role attributed to him only in the second one. I and misrepresented it. am suggesting that the moment of Rorty’s professional 7 “turn” also happens to be the moment at which Dewey My task in what follows is to explore the uniquely Deweyan appears on the Rortyan map. Getting clear on the Deweyan deposit in Rorty’s philosophy. This undertaking requires deposit in Rorty’s thought therefore involves understanding attention to the fact that (no less than Wittgenstein or the nature of Rorty’s turn, and trying to see more clearly the Heidegger) there were two very different and sharply complicated vision at its center. That vision can be clarified, contrastable periods in Richard Rorty’s philosophical career. I think, by attending to the broad, sweeping, cultural- Rorty’s thinking is rightly characterized as having undergone political significance that Rorty claimed to have recognized 5 in Dewey’s work. For, despite all their agreements on what The “early” Richard Rorty was a “thrusting young analytic Rorty might have called “merely philosophical” matters, a transformative kehre sometime in the mid to late 1970’s. Rorty read Dewey as having contributed to “a world4 Rorty seems to have held that metaphysics formed a rather peripheral and insignificant part of Dewey’s thought. We were often told that Dewey was merely getting “sidetracked into doing ‘metaphysics’” (Rorty 1982, 82), that such concerns were not central to Dewey’s philosophical enterprise. Many readers and interpreters of Dewey beg to differ. 5 Where precisely to make the “cut” between the early and late periods in Rorty’s career is largely a matter of interpretation. I won’t weigh in on that largely biographical, and, for my present purposes, relatively unimportant question here. See Gross (2008) for an excellent and detailed biographical account of the early Rorty’s growing dissatisfaction with mainstream Anglo-American analytic philosophy in general, and the philosophy department at Princeton more particularly. historical change in Humanity’s self-image” (Rorty 1998a, 132). On Rorty’s view, Dewey’s monumental significance involved his contribution to a “long-term attempt to change the rhetoric, the common sense, and the self image of [his] community.” (Rorty 1998a, 41) Along with the Romantic poets and Nietzsche, Dewey helped partially fill in a 6 See Rorty 1970a, 1970b and 1972. As Rorty told the story in an autobiographical essay, he was taught contempt for Deweyan pragmatism while studying at the University of Chicago during the so-called “Hutchins period”. “Since Dewey was a hero to all the people among whom I had grown up,” he reflected, “scorning Dewey was a convenient form of adolescent revolt.” (Rorty 1999, 8-9.) 7 57 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel “startlingly counterintuitive self-image sketched by Darwin” of a brand of “anti-professionalism”  a certain (Rorty 1998a, 41), a self-image, Rorty argued persistently, publicization of academic philosophy  that Rorty sought to from whose adoption we would all stand to benefit in the emulate. As is well known, Rorty spent much of his time long run. 8 debunking the grand, self-congratulatory aspirations of traditional philosophy (with a capital ‘P’), arguing, as did What seems to me most worth preserving in Dewey’s work is his sense of the gradual change in human beings’ self-image which has taken place in recorded history  the change from a sense of their dependence upon something antecedently present to a sense of the utopian possibilities of the future, the growth of their ability to mitigate their finitude by a talent for self-creation. Dewey saw religious tolerance, Galileo, Darwin, and (above all) the rise of democratic governments and literate electorates, as central episodes in this story. His own effort to overthrow representationalist doctrines, an effort which embroiled him in endless controversies about objectivity, truth, and relativism, was undertaken because he thought that these doctrines had become impediments to human beings’ sense of self reliance. I think that he was right about this, and that his effort is worth continuing. (Rorty 1991, 17) Dewey before him, that philosophers should dedicate their energy to the “problems of men” not the “problems of philosophers”. 9 While I do not claim that Dewey was the sole influence on Rorty vis-à-vis my three themes, I believe that it is in Dewey’s bequest that these commitments and the broader hopes and temperament of which they are a significant part come together in their richest and most coherent whole. It is, in short, a distinctly American, secularist, anti-foundationalist, historicist, naturalistic, deeply democratic, quasi-romanticist, future-oriented vision of what we have been, what we are, and what we might yet become. Three broad and inter-related themes stand out as jointly articulating Rorty’s attempt to continue this Deweyan effort: 1. Anti-authoritarianism (1) Anti-authoritarianism, for which what we may call Dewey’s democratic constructivism serves as a guide, (2) Meliorism, which forms the background against which Dewey’s and Rorty’s mutual enthusiasm for Darwin is best understood, and (3) Cultural Politics, which can be understood as an instantiation of the future-oriented experimentalism that was central to both philosophers. I will discuss these three themes in turn, while intermittently trying to show how they hang together and mutually reinforce one another. Rorty famously interpreted Darwin as providing support for a new self-image for humanity, a new way for human beings to think of themselves and their relation to everything else. On Rorty’s view, Darwin’s theory suggests “[a] picture of humans-as-slightly-more-complicated-animals” (Rorty 1998a, 48). Rorty thought that coming to see ourselves in this way — as differing only in complexity from the rest of the animal kingdom; “clever beasts” in Nietzsche’s jargon — would help free us from “the notion that there are nonhuman forces to which human beings should be The impact of Deweyan pragmatism on Rorty is admittedly vast and complex. The emphasis here placed on my three themes should not be understood as an argument against the significance of other Deweyan legacies in Rorty’s thought. To quickly mention but one that I here overlook: it can be suggested that Dewey (like James) is representative responsible” (Rorty 1989, 45). The “authoritarian” idea that there are such forces, Rorty argued, represents the least common denominator between a belief in god and Platonic metaphysics. Both are manifestations of the idea that “There is [an] authority called Reality before whom we need to bow down.”(Rorty 2000b, 376) Rorty labored long and hard to eschew the spell that that idea (in all its guises) has 8 Perhaps here is a suitable place to point out that the grand, historical-philosophical significance that Rorty located in Dewey’s work strikes many philosophers as wildly implausible. To be sure, even readers sympathetic to Dewey and classical American pragmatism would have been surprised to find Dewey’s name mentioned alongside Wittgenstein’s and Heidegger’s as one of the three most important philosophers of the twentieth century (cf. Rorty 1979, 5). 58 cast on our thinking. It was his great hope that we might “try 9 I have argued elsewhere (cf. Rondel 2011) that the antiprofessionalism shared by Dewey and Rorty rears its head in the “lay sermon” quality of their otherwise very different prose styles. The “lay sermon” occupies a middle ground between a large, systematic philosophical theory and a policy recommendation. Both Dewey and Rorty, I argued in that paper, are quite at home in this middle ground. ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel to get to the point where we no longer worship anything, argue that an anti-authoritarian future of this kind would be where we treat nothing as a quasi-divinity…” (Rorty 1989, more rational, more in accordance with reality, or more 22) This was also Heidegger’s hope (insofar as Heidegger was faithful to our true nature. It is simply a promising, long-term capable of hoping for anything), in his struggle to overcome experiment, a direction in which humanity might, with metaphysics, to “sing a new song,” to repudiate the encouragement, go. Rorty’s anti-authoritarianism is rightly powerful grip of “onto-theology”. 10 understood, not as an attempt to accurately represent reality, but rather as a bold instance of “cultural politics” Rorty hoped that this kind of “authoritarianism” would go (about which more in section 3). away. Not because one day we will have discovered its objective falsity (or incoherence or unintelligibility), but Such anti-authoritarianism was at the very heart of Rorty’s because we will stop thinking of it in terms of what William philosophy. “I think of my work,” he once wrote, “as trying James called a “live, momentous hypothesis” — because one to move people away from the notion of being in touch with day no one takes it seriously anymore. something big and powerful and non-human.” (Rorty 2006a, 49) Anti-authoritarianism was central not only to his more [I]n its ideal form, the culture of liberalism would be one…in which no trace of divinity remained, either in the form of a divinized world or a divinized self…The process of de-divinization…would, ideally, culminate in our no longer being able to see any use for the notion that finite, mortal contingently existing human beings might derive the meanings of their lives from anything except other finite, mortal, contingently existing human beings. (Rorty 1989, 4445) professional views on truth, justification, knowledge, and rationality but also  and more dramatically  to his synoptic retelling of western philosophy’s recent history. It is not an embellishment to say that an anti-authoritarian perspective provides the background against which virtually all of Rorty’s views are best understood. Rorty was inspired by the possibility that his remote John McDowell provides an eloquent “simple outline” of the descendants will find it obvious and platitudinous that there anti-authoritarian story that was at the center of Rorty’s is no god; that there is nothing in the universe to which we work: are answerable save for our fellow human beings. Such descendants would look back at present-day “authoritarians” (religious or philosophical) with the same incredulity as present-day New Englanders think about their ancestors who hanged witches. In this possible future, everyone would know — again, as a matter of banal platitude — that there is nothing in the cosmos to hang on to except other human beings (and that we are none the worse for it). All of these fuzzy hopes are manifestations of what Rorty has called his “militant anti-authoritarianism”. (Rorty 2000, 376) Expressed generally, it is the hope that one day we shall reject all sources of authority, save for the outcome of free and open human cooperation. Rorty did not 10 There are a number of thinkers whose “anti-authoritarian” chorus Rorty claimed to be joining, including but not limited to Nietzsche, Heidegger, Dewey, Foucault, and Habermas. One may well add the later Wittgenstein to the list, insofar as he made respectable the idea that language and meaning are self-enclosed, and repudiated the idea that some language games correspond to something nonhuman better than others. The sense of sin from which Dewey freed himself was a reflection of a religious outlook according to which human beings were called on to humble themselves before a non-human authority. Such a posture is infantile in its submissiveness to something other than ourselves. If human beings are to achieve maturity, they need to follow Dewey in liberating themselves from this sort of religion of abasement before the divine Other. But a humanism that goes no further than that is still incomplete. We need a counterpart secular emancipation as well. In the period in the development of Western culture during which the God who figures in that sort of religion was stricken, so to speak, with his mortal illness, the illness that was going to lead to the demise famously announced by Nietzsche, some European intellectuals found themselves conceiving the secular world, the putative object of everyday and scientific knowledge, in ways that paralleled that humanly immature conception of the divine. This is a secular analog to a religion of abasement, and human maturity requires that we liberate ourselves from it as well as from its religious counterpart…Full human maturity would require us to acknowledge authority only if the acknowledgement does not involve abasing ourselves before something nonhuman. (McDowell 2000, 109-110. My emphasis) 59 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel The parallel drawn with religion here is noteworthy, not only decisions were made in the right way, viz., deliberately, because the vocabulary of a “secular analog to a religion of experimentally, and democratically — determines the worth abasement” was one of Rorty’s favorite anti-authoritarian of the prescriptions so derived. Just as Rawls understands rhetorical strategies, but also because this rhetorical, justice as the outcome of an idealized legislative procedure analogical use of religion sheds light on a strong similarity (The Original Position), Dewey appraises democratic between the Deweyan and Rortyan brands of anti- decisions according to the conditions under which they authoritarianism. Even if Rorty was, as is undeniable, the arise. We do not value the answers democracy produces much more raucously secularist (and atheist) between them, because they are independently valuable answers — as if an it was not uncommon for both men to express their hopes authoritarian king or a coin flip might have arrived 11 accidentally at the very same conclusions; as if antecedently Paradoxically in Rorty’s case, it was a sort a religious faith in sound political outcomes were out there all along, waiting a future that is utterly without religious faith. patiently for some demos to come along and apprehend for the future in a more or less religious idiom. them My sense of the holy, insofar as I have one, is bound up with the hope that someday, any millennium now, my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law. In such a society, communication would be domination-free, class and caste would be unknown, hierarchy would be a matter of temporary pragmatic convenience, and power would be entirely at the disposal of the free agreement of a literate and well educated electorate. (Rorty 2005, 40) — but rather because they were reached democratically. Dewey celebrated democratic decisionmaking because it (and it alone) constitutes the social and political expression of a rich community of associated men and women, governing their affairs in relations of mutual respect and equality. Take care of democracy, Dewey might have said (echoing Rorty’s constructivist slogan about truth), This might have been John Dewey’s sense of the holy too, 12 and sound political outcomes will take care of themselves. 13 once he gave up on the Congregationalist Christianity in which he was reared in Vermont. Despite his firm Dewey’s secularism, Dewey would very often articulate his defense of authoritarianism fit comfortably together, as different democracy in religious language. When he wrote that, expressions of the same basic idea. I would suggest that “Democracy is a way of life controlled by a working faith in democracy was for Dewey precisely the form anti- the possibilities of human nature.” (Dewey 1993, 242), authoritarianism takes in social and political life; it is what someone would be forgiven for supposing that when Dewey societies which have outgrown their need for what stopped attending Ann Arbor’s First Congregational Church Nietzsche called “metaphysical comfort” can, at their best, in 1894, democracy assumed the central ethical role once be like. Dewey and Rorty are united, then, in rejecting the occupied by his Christian belief. Indeed, Alan Ryan is exactly idea that we have a duty to anything — Truth, The Will of right to suggest that Dewey conceived of democracy “as the God, The Moral Law, The Dictates of Reason, and so on — democratic constructivism and anti- 14 modern secular realization of the kingdom of God on earth.” (Ryan 1995, 86) 12 What I will call Dewey’s democratic constructivism served as a powerful inspiration authoritarianism”. On for Rorty’s Dewey’s view, “militant there antiis no independent criterion of “right action” to which democracy reliably leads (or, if there is, it is a thin, minimal criterion). The quality of the associations themselves — the fact that 11 For a useful account of John Dewey’s wrestling with the very idea of authority  metaphysical, religious, philosophical, and political  see Diggins 1994, chapter 5. 60 Viz., “Take care of freedom and truth will take care of itself.” Cf. Rorty 2006a. 13 See Talisse (2007) for the argument that Deweyan democracy is not a wholly proceduralist ideal, but ethically substantive and “comprehensive” in Rawls’s sense of the term. 14 Some philosophers like to use capital letters to distinguish between ordinary and philosophical usages of concepts, viz., Truth/truth; Reality/reality; Justice/justice, and so on. Others philosophers think that only frivolous postmodernists make such use of capital letters. I have no strong feelings on the matter. I have used capital letters here if only to remind readers that Rorty was a rather famous practitioner of such capitalization, even applying the technique to “philosophy” itself. ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel that can supersede our duty to cooperate with one another If someone is challenged about a deeply held belief, Rorty is in reaching free consensus. here saying, she can — beyond succumbing to “helpless passivity or a resort to force” (Rorty 1989, 73) — respond to Fittingly, Dewey sometimes conceived of this duty in terms the challenge in at least one of two ways. On the one hand, of “Creative Democracy” (cf. Dewey 1993, 240-245). He she can appeal to what Rorty called “objectivity” (something took for granted that, “the task [of democracy] can be like “God’s Will,” or “The Dictates of Reason,” or accomplished only by inventive effort and creative activity.” Nature of Ultimate Reality,” or “The Moral Law”)  that is, (Dewey 1993, 241) The concept of creativity brings into something big and non-human that makes beliefs of the focus the fundamental anti-authoritarian insight here. relevant sort true or false. On the other hand, she can Rather than helping citizens locate what is antecedently appeal to some community, some ethnos, with which, by valuable in communal life — though it can do that too — virtue of the deeply held belief in question she is announcing democracy is valuable inasmuch as it encourages the her solidarity. The first kind of “authoritarian” response creation and articulation of a community’s moral identity. It appeals to something unconditioned and timeless; the is the social and ethical context within which a community second “anti-authoritarian” response appeals to something can meaningfully pose questions that arise about its own human and contingent. As Rorty interpreted it  not character and self-image. Democracy, then, provides the implausibly in my opinion  Deweyan democracy is one moral and political background against which a deliberative name for the kind of society that would fully and community can pose questions like: “Who are we?” and consistently embody the latter, solidarity-inspired, anti- “What shall we become?” It is the social, ethical and political authoritarian option. “The democratic community of context within which “we, who are also parts of the moving Dewey’s dreams,” Rorty wrote, “is a community in which present, [can] create ourselves as we create an unknown everybody thinks that it is human solidarity, rather than future.” (Dewey 1993, 88) knowledge of something not merely human, that really “The matters. The actually existing approximations to such a fully Deweyan democracy was for Rorty tantamount to the sort of democratic, fully secular community…seem to me the community that has achieved the “full human maturity” that greatest achievements of our species.” (Rorty 1999, 20) 15 was at the heart of his anti-authoritarian hopes. Citizens of such a community, Rorty seems to have thought, would all It is here, however, in its unflinching commitment to an take for granted that there is no authority to be appealed to increasingly tolerant and humane democratic culture, that apart from the free, deliberative consensus of fellow Rorty’s anti-authoritarianism reveals its distinctly Deweyan democratic peers. The citizens of such a community would (and American) colors. Unlike other (mainly European) anti- believe that it is “solidarity” rather than “objectivity” that authoritarians  Nietzsche, say, or Foucault  the anti- really matters. As Rorty explained in an important essay, authoritarianism of Dewey and Rorty is of a decidedly “meliorist” stripe. Both see a possible anti-authoritarian There are two principle ways in which reflective human beings try, by placing their lives in a larger context, to give sense to those lives. The first is by telling the story of their contribution to a community. This community may be the actual historical one in which they live, or another actual one, distant in time or place, or a quite imaginary one, consisting perhaps of a dozen heroes and heroines selected from history or fiction or both. The second way is to describe themselves as standing in immediate relation to a nonhuman reality…. I shall say that stories of the former kind exemplify the desire for solidarity, and that stories of the latter kind exemplify the desire for objectivity. (Rorty 1991, 21, emphasis added) future as cause for hope, not nihilism, despair, or cynicism. Both see a possible anti-authoritarian future (melioristically) as one in which greater freedom and a reduction of suffering can, with intelligent effort and luck, be achieved, a future in which men and women can live richer, fuller, more satisfactory lives. For Rorty, it is a future in which the idea that “cruelty is the worst thing we do” is accepted by just about everyone, without thinking that it can be justified by reference to a non-human authority of any kind. 15 This thought is much more fully developed in Rorty 1998b. 61 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel 2. Meliorism teleology, but rather that the future will astonish and exhilarate.” (Rorty 1999, 28) What Dewey called “growth” Meliorism belongs to a worldview for which indeterminacy, points to nothing save for more growth, a better future, uncertainty, and impermanence are the central features. It more capacious and humane individual habits and social stems from acceptance of the fact that, “[t]he future is institutions  a more effective set of tools with which to always unpredictable” (Dewey 1993, 87). It is made plausible cope with our problems (or “problematic situations” as by the incompleteness and contestation inherent in Dewey would call them). Meliorists do not believe there is experience. Recognizing that there shall always be conflicts such a thing as “The Good Life for Man,” at least not in the among our ends, that even our most systematic efforts to way that Socrates supposed. Nor is there such a thing as “an resolve such conflicts will invariably generate new ones, and Ideal Society,” at least not in the way Plato, Augustine, or so on — ad infinitum — is the first step on the road to Marx supposed. There are only “more interesting modes of pragmatist meliorism. life” and “better future societies” and so on, forever, until (or unless) our species becomes extinct. 17 Accepting that there are no final answers to life’s most pressing questions — no set of habits and beliefs that will I invoke the notions of “species” and “extinction” here so as end, once and for all, the need for reflection about what we to emphasize that pragmatist meliorism and the broader should care about and what we should do — makes way of thinking of which it is a major part owes much to attractive what James and Dewey call an ethos of pragmatism’s encounter with, and reception of, Darwin. “meliorism”. Meliorism makes no predictions about how the Pragmatists take from Darwin the idea that ethical, cultural, future will unfold; it claims no superior knowledge about the and political life be regarded as continuous with biological forces that govern human history; it offers no unique evolution  that “cultural evolution takes over from insights into the nature of the human condition. It is “not biological evolution without a break.” (Rorty 1999, 75) From concerned with prophecy but with analysis.” (Dewey 1954, Darwinism Dewey and Rorty learned that individuals and 185) As Dewey says, it is simply the belief “that the specific societies were not distinct from nature, but organic conditions they extensions of evolutionary processes. Just as the evolution comparatively bad or comparatively good, in any event may of species admits of no telos, no predetermined raison d’être which exist at one moment, be 16 be bettered.” (Dewey 1959, 178) beyond the vague “improved fitness” (and “even more improved fitness” thereafter, and so on), so do our Pragmatist meliorism is not just an attitude or disposition — individual and social lives lack a circumscribable terminus, though it is that too. It is also the more concrete thesis that some set of beliefs and practices that would conclusively the reformer’s work shall never be complete, that growth, seal the gap between “the actual good” and “the future modification, and improvement do not admit of an better”. It is implausible to suppose, after all, that there is a eschatological terminus. They are their own ends: “The end way of life or a politics or a set of beliefs upon which it of human activity is not rest, but rather richer and better would be impossible to improve, even if only slightly. This human activity.” (Rorty 1991, 39) The meliorism shared by idea is summed up in the Deweyan slogans, to paraphrase: James, Dewey and Rorty is tantamount to the hope “not that “growth is its own end,” and “there is nothing to which the future will conform to a plan, will fulfill an immanent growth is relative except more growth”. 16 Unsurprisingly, James’s gloss was similar. “There are unhappy men who think the salvation of the world impossible. Theirs is the doctrine known as pessimism. Optimism in turn would be the doctrine that thinks the world’s salvation inevitable. Midway between the two there stands what may be called the doctrine of meliorism… Meliorism treats salvation as neither necessary nor impossible. It treats it as a possibility, which becomes more and more of a probability the more numerous and actual conditions of salvation become.” (James 1981, 128) 62 For both Dewey and Rorty the invocation of Darwin here is not incidental. Indeed, as Rorty sketched his version of recent philosophical history, the growing plausibility among 17 See Koopman 2009 for a recent (and splendidly wideranging) account of the meliorism shared by James, Dewey, and Rorty. ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel philosophers of an open, indeterminate future  their Emerson and Whitman thought of America: a wild frontier increasing called out of which endless possibilities flow, “the greatest poem,” “philosophy’s search for the immutable” (Dewey 1960, 26- a locus of hope. He agreed with Dewey that “Individuality is 48), its quest for “a certain finality and foreverness” (Dewey at first spontaneous and unshaped; it is a potentiality, a 1954, 194-5)  is largely attributed to “Darwin’s theory… capacity of development.” (Dewey 1993, 86) [having] skepticism become the about common what sense Dewey of European [N]o past achievement, not Plato’s or even Christ’s, can tell us about the ultimate significance of human life. No such achievement can give us a template on which to model our future. The future will widen endlessly. Experiments with new forms of individual and social life will interact and reinforce one another. Individual life will become unthinkably diverse and social life unthinkably free. The moral we should draw from the European past, and in particular from Christianity, is not instruction about the authority under which we should live, but suggestions about how to make ourselves wonderfully different from anything that has been. (Rorty 1998b, 24) intellectuals.” (Rorty 1999, 264) After Darwin … it became possible to believe that nature is not leading up to anything — that nature has nothing in mind. This idea, in turn, suggested that the difference between animals and humans is not evidence for the existence of an immaterial deity. It suggested further that humans have to dream up the point of human life, and cannot appeal to a nonhuman standard to determine whether they have chosen wisely. The latter suggestion made radical pluralism intellectually viable. For it became possible to think that the meaning of one human life may have little to do with the meaning of any other human life, while being none the worse for that. (Rorty 1999, 266) Rorty’s “liberal ironist” is someone who delights in expanding her ethical horizons by learning about different This is the kernel of wisdom in the pragmatist maxim, goods, interesting modes of life, and new ways of being hyperbolically expressed by Rorty, that “there is no such human. thing as the search for truth, as distinct from the search for of making things new, rather than discovering what has 18 20 Above all, the ironist is consumed by the prospect happiness.” (Rorty 2000, 376) Since “happiness” is not the always been there. She is forever trying to enlarge her sort of thing we should expect to get right once and for all — sympathies, extend her loyalties, and seek out new modes of since it will always be possible and desirable to become life with which to experiment. She exhibits an almost happier still — pragmatists are always on the look out for religious “willingness to refer all questions of ultimate something better. justification to the future, to the substance of things hoped for.” (Rorty 1999, 27) The ideal is to be ironic about one’s Nowhere was Rorty’s meliorism more evident than in his self, to take one’s present self lightly (ironically) in the hope writings on private irony and individual self-creation. I would of a yet better future self, “to shift attention from the argue that Rortyan “irony” is simply what meliorism looks eternal to the future,” to substitute hope for knowledge like when it is pointed inward, when it is applied to the (Rorty 1999, 29). “[T]here is no center to the self,” Rorty 19 Rorty thought that genuine argued in impeccable meliorist fashion, “there are only moral progress had been made “since the time, with Hegel, different ways of weaving new candidates for belief and we began to think of self-consciousness as self-creation.” desire into antecedently existing webs of belief and desire” (Rorty 1989, 24) He regarded the need to “create new ways (Rorty 1989, 83-4), and that the point of being human creation of an individual self. of being human, and to dream up new projects” (Rorty 2001, 154) — a need that blooms as religion and metaphysics wane — as the most uplifting achievement of recent 20 intellectual history. Rorty thought of individuality much as 18 “Happiness” here means something like: “discovering new ways to get the things we want, and inventing splendid new things to want.” 19 “Irony isn’t a spiritual path you might pursue. It’s just a matter of sitting loose to one’s present self and hoping that one’s next self will be a bit more interesting.” (Rorty 2006b, 56) Rorty placed much more emphasis on the private, idiosyncratic, inward side of our nature than did Dewey. As Ryan makes the point, “The individual in Dewey always seems to be going outward into the world; ‘the bliss of solitude’ is not a Deweyan thought, even though Wordsworth was one of his favorite poets…It is not only the vie intérieure that gets shortchanged; one result of this lack of interest in the private, the intimate, and the sexually charged is that family life gets shortchanged as well…this is rather a loud silence.” (Ryan 1995, 368) 63 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel 21 therefore — at least in private — is to weave together the long-term cultural and political hopes is what “cultural best, most interesting self that one can. politics” is all about. Something traditionally regarded as a moral abomination can become an object of general satisfaction, or conversely, as a result of the increased popularity of an alternative description of what is happening. Such popularity extends logical space by making descriptions of situations that used to seem crazy seem sane. Once, for example, it would have sounded crazy to describe homosexual sodomy as a touching expression of devotion or to describe a woman manipulating the elements of the Eucharist as a figuration of the relation of the Virgin to her Son. But such descriptions are now acquiring popularity. At most times, it sounds crazy to describe the degradation and extirpation of helpless minorities as a purification of the moral and spiritual life of Europe. But at certain periods and places — under the Inquisition, during the Wars of Religion, under the Nazis — it did not. (Rorty 1998a, 204) Cultural Politics What Rorty called “cultural politics” is a term that covers arguments about what words to use, as well as “projects for getting rid of whole topics of discourse.” (Rorty 2007, 3) Arguments about what words to use were, on Rorty’s view, a crucial element in campaigns for social progress. This is because “rather than… an attempt to grasp intrinsic features of the real…redescription…[is] a tool for social or individual change.” 22 (Rorty 1999, 220) This is the basis for Rorty’s suggestion that certain novels — Uncle Tom’s Cabin; Bleak House; 1984; Lolita, and others— can serve as sources of acute moral learning. It is also the basis for his suggestion that young people be encouraged to read the New Testament and the Communist Manifesto for the reason that “[they] will be morally better for having done so.” (Rorty 1999, 203) The main reason is that literature and poetry — in Rorty’s capacious sense of those terms — aid in the process of popularizing alternative descriptions, a process In addition to providing grist for projects of idiosyncratic self-creation, Rorty thought that certain books can help us become less cruel. The latter sort of book, wrote Rorty, “can be divided into (I) books which help us see the effects of social practices and institutions on others and (2) those which help us see the effects of our private idiosyncrasies on others.” (Rorty 1989, 141) which is the driving force both for private projects of selfcreation and a more humane (less cruel) public culture. Popularizing alternative descriptions in accordance with The transformative power of words and language suggests that, “we look at relatively specialized and technical debates between contemporary philosophers in the light of our 21 Dewey would surely have been unhappy with Rorty’s bifurcation of public and private. As Westbrook argues, correctly: “For Dewey…democracy was ‘a way of life’ not merely a public way of life…and he would not have accepted Rorty’s contention that ‘there is no way to bring selfcreation together with justice at the level of theory’ for that would have required him to give up a principle article of his democratic faith. Rorty contends that the belief that ‘the springs of private fulfillment and of human solidarity are the same’ is a bothersome Platonic or Christian hangover. If so, Dewey suffered from it.” (Westbrook 1991, 541) Nevertheless, Dewey’s commitment to “the chance to become a person” makes it clear that he valued an individual’s ability to be originally self-authoring no less than Rorty did. 22 This adds plausibility to Christopher Voparil’s observation that Rorty performs a clever refutation of Marx’s Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, viz., “The philosophers have only interpreted the world…the point, however, is to change it.” According to Voparil, “Rorty’s stance responds to Marx’s thesis by refuting it. Reinterpreting the world, or to use Rorty’s term, redescribing it, contra Marx, is a way of changing it. Redescriptions have the power to change minds because seeing our world in a transformed light is part and parcel of action to transform it.” (Voparil 2006, 183) 64 hopes for cultural change.” (Rorty 2007, x) While most professional philosophers will think this suggestion both reckless and wrongheaded, I think that Rorty’s idea can be made to look more sensible when viewed  as is proper  against the background of the open-ended experimentalism that both he and Dewey shared. 23 23 I do not claim that the “experimentalism” that Dewey and Rorty shared was identical. On the contrary, Dewey thought that a commitment to experimentalism required philosophers to become more scientific, whereas Rorty defended his experimentalism  and attributed the same view to Dewey  in terms of something called “pragmatism without method”. Yet the experimental “method” was extremely important for Dewey. “When we say that thinking and beliefs should be experimental, not absolutistic,” Dewey wrote in the Public and Its Problems, “we have then in mind a certain logic of method, not, primarily, the carrying on of experimentation like that of laboratories.” (Dewey 1954, 202) ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel For pragmatists, fallibilism and experimentalism are pragmatist sense, then, is to mediate between what Dewey mutually enforcing doctrines. The recognition that we may calls “The Art of Acceptance” and the “Art of Control” (cf. always be wrong (fallibilism) engenders an open-minded, Dewey 1960, 74-107) scientific, and deliberate approach to inquiry (experimentalism). Since “no concrete test of what is really If this sounds a lot like the so-called “scientific method,” true has ever been agreed upon,” since we lack an “infallible there is good reason for that: “Pragmatism was born of signal for knowing whether [a proposition] be truth” (James Peirce’s conviction that…[w]hat is philosophically pregnant 2000, 207-8), the most fruitful method of inquiry is to treat in the new science is… the admission of experiment as a beliefs as hypotheses to be tested and assessed in way, a method, even the preferable method of knowledge.” experience. In “The Will to Believe,” James made this (Allen 2004, 52) Pragmatist experimentalism rejects the connection explicit: disinterested “contemplationism” common to Plato and Descartes, as well as the “look and see” empiricisms of Locke Objective evidence and certitude are doubtless very fine ideals to play with, but where on this moonlit and dream-visited planet are they found? I am, therefore, myself a complete empiricist as far as my theory of human knowledge goes. I live, to be sure, by the practical faith that we must go on experiencing and thinking over our experience, for only thus can our opinions grow more true; but to hold any one of them — I absolutely do not care which — as if it never could be reinterpretable or corrigible, I believe to be a tremendously mistaken attitude, and I think the whole history of philosophy 24 will bear me out. (James 2000, 207) and Hume. Instead, pragmatists take inspiration from the experimentalists of the new science — “Galileo, Bacon, Boyle, Hooke, Newton, Franklin, Faraday, Helmholtz, and others.” (Allen 2004, 52) Knowledge is not the fruit of passive contemplation; we don’t get it by pondering axioms in front of the fireplace. The “actual procedures of knowledge,” Dewey wrote, “interpreted after the pattern formed by experimental inquiry, cancel the isolation of knowledge from overt action.” (Dewey 1960, 48) It is worth If we construe our fallibility in terms of the idea that remembering that the subtitle to Dewey’s most important improved habits and beliefs are always possible and work about knowledge, The Quest for Certainty, is “A Study desirable (that is, melioristically), then it is plausible to view of the Relation of Knowledge and Action”. inquiry, not as the search for absolute truth or unmovable certainty, but as the generation of hypotheses to be used Experimentalism is not just a corrective to the prevailing and tested in projects of reform (cf. Dewey 2000). To “test” biases of epistemologists, not just a repudiation of what in this context does not mean to “look and see”. On the Dewey calls the “spectator theory of knowledge”. On the contrary, as Barry Allen writes, “To experiment calls for contrary, it is presented (especially by Dewey and Rorty) as a controlled intervention, contrived observation, deliberately method of inquiry and problem solving, in the widest changing the normal conditions of perception.” (Allen 2004, possible senses of “inquiry” and “problem solving”. 52) Pragmatist experimentalism’s “essential feature,” Experimentalism goes all the way down; there is nothing according to Dewey, “is to maintain the continuity of that should not be viewed as another experiment, knowing with an activity which purposely modifies the something fixed and permanent, to which experimentalism environment…to adapt the environment to our needs and to shall reliably lead us. Experimentalism is not a handy way to adapt our aims and desires to the situation in which we live.” arrive at enduring truths. It does not constitute a helpful (Dewey 1997, 344) Otherwise put, it is a matter of new answer to an old metaphysical problem — a promising deliberately aligning our means with our ends, while also new method with which (at last!) to cut past mere bringing our ends into a more intelligent configuration with appearances and arrive at Reality. the means currently at our disposal. To experiment in the experimentalism is predicated on the assumption that there Rather, pragmatist are no such things as eternal truths or enduring Reality. As 24 James does allow that we might be infallible with respect to “abstract propositions of comparison (such as two and two are the same as four)”. Unfortunately, such propositions “tell… us nothing by themselves about concrete reality.” (James 2000, 207) Dewey and Rorty understood it, moreover, experimentalism bears on the resolution of every kind of human problem. Whether the issue is delivering electricity to crowded cities, 65 ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel feeding the hungry, building more fuel-efficient cars, Despite important dissimilarities that remain between them, deciding whom to vote for, considering the comparative and despite Rorty’s occasional misappropriation of Deweyan merits of disparate utopian visions, devising educational ideas, it has been my argument here that the Deweyan strategies for overcoming racism and homophobia, or, as we deposit in Rorty’s pragmatism is best accounted for in terms saw earlier, “trying to move people away from the notion of of the broad, fuzzy, cultural-political vision that was being in touch with something big and powerful and non- fundamental for both philosophers  a vision that is best human” (Rorty 2006a, 49), the best way to proceed is described, I have been suggesting, by the thematic trinity of experimentally. In this respect, then, ethics, aesthetics, and anti-authoritarianism, meliorism, and cultural politics. That political philosophy should be no less “experimental” than fundamental vision strikes me as an uplifting blend of sober chemistry, psychology, or biology. inquiry and Romantic dreaming; an inspiring mediation between our inexorable finitude on the one hand, and a Taking “cultural politics” and experimentalism seriously, as boundless future on the other; a uniquely American mélange Dewey and Rorty both did, is effectively to locate knowledge of prudence, intelligence, courage, cooperation, and hope. and truth in the world of our problems and challenges, align William James was right: “If death ends all, we cannot meet them with our needs, set them within practical human life — death better.” (James 2000, 218) 25 ground them in “what works,” as the old slogan has it. It is to construe theory and practice, not as adversarial opposites, References but as coalescent, integrated, interdependent domains of intelligent inquiry. In one of pragmatism’s many metaphors of the marketplace, it is to hone in on the “cash-value” of our habits and ideas. Conclusion Anti-authoritarianism, meliorism, and cultural politics buttress one another, standing together in a sort of mutually reinforcing triangulation. Once we abandon the idea that we are answerable to a non-human authority, the appropriate response is neither despair nor cynicism nor optimistic delusion. A universe that is cold, indifferent and godless is to be responded to  melioristically  with the idea that the future can (but might not) be made wonderfully better by human hands alone. Neither Dewey nor Rorty thought that a better future was inevitable. Such a future (if we shall have it at all) must be planned for, intelligently organized, deliberately and experimentally cultivated, and this requires, in turn, careful reflection about all sorts of things  and even then, surely, there are no guarantees. The best way to Allen, Barry. 2004. Knowledge and Civilization. Boulder, CO: Westview. Dewey, John. 1954. The Public and its Problems. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. ----------. 1959. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Boston: Beacon. ----------. 1960. The Quest for Certainty. New York: Capricorn. ----------. 1993. The Political Writings. Edited by D. Morris and I. Shapiro. Indianapolis: Hackett. ----------. 1997. Democracy and Education. New York: Simon and Schuster. ----------. 2000. Liberalism and Social Action. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Diggins, John Patrick. 1994. The Promise of Pragmatism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gross, Neil. 2008. Richard Rorty: The Making of an American Philosopher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hickman, Larry. 2007. Pragmatism as Post-Postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey New York: Fordham University Press. James, William. 1981. Pragmatism. Edited by B. Kuklick. Indianapolis: Hackett. ----------. 2000. Pragmatism and Other Writings. Edited by G. Gunn. London: Penguin. Koopman, Colin. 2009. Pragmatism as Transition: Historicity and Hope in James, Dewey, and Rorty. New York: Columbia University Press. try to address these problems, both Dewey and Rorty agreed, is experimentally. Indeed, it is the only way left once one takes seriously the conclusion that “philosophy’s search for the immutable” has been, for better or worse, a fool’s errand. 66 25 I am extremely grateful to Colin Koopman for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and to Barry Allen, Alex Livingston, Douglas McDermid, and Kai Nielsen for illuminating discussion on some of the issues with which the paper deals. ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM, MELIORISM, AND CULTURAL POLITICS: O N T H E D E W E Y A N D E P O S I T I N R O R T Y ’ S P R A G M A T I S M David Rondel McDowell, John. 2000. Towards Rehabilitating Objectivity. In Rorty and His Critics, ed. Robert Brandom, 109123. Oxford: Blackwell. Rondel, David.. 2011. “On Rorty’s Evangelical Metaphilosophy,” Philosophy & Rhetoric 44, 150170. Rorty, Richard. 1970a. “Incorrigibility as the Mark of the Mental,” Journal of Philosophy 67, 399-424. ----------. 1970b. “In Defense of Eliminative Materialism.” Review of Metaphysics 24, 112-121. ----------. 1972. “Functionalism, Machines, and Incorrigibility.” Journal of Philosophy 69, 203 220. ----------. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press. ----------. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis, MN.: University of Minnesota Press. ----------. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. ----------. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. ----------. 1998a. Truth and Progress. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. ------. 1998b. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ----------. 1999. Philosophy and Social Hope. Harmondsworth, UK.: Penguin. ----------. 2000. Response to Bjorn Ramberg. In Rorty and His Critics, ed. Robert Brandom, 370-377. Oxford: Blackwell. ----------. 2001. Response to Richard Shusterman. In Richard Rorty: Critical Dialogues, ed. Mathew Festenstein and Simon Thompson, 29-32. Oxford: Polity. ----------. 2005. The Future of Religion. New York: Columbia University Press. ----------. 2006a. Toward a Postmetaphysical Culture. In Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty, ed. Eduardo Mendieta, 46-55. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ----------. 2006b. “An Interview with Richard Rorty.” Gnosis 8 (1). ----------. 2007. Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, Jay. (1993) "Raiders of the Lost Distinction: Richard Rorty and the Search for the Last Dichotomy". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 53 (1). Ryan, Alan. 1995. John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism. New York: Norton. Talisse, Robert. 2007. A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy. New York: Routledge. Voparil, Chrisopher J. 2006. Richard Rorty: Politics and Vision. New York: Rowan & Littlefield. Westbrook, Robert. 1991. John Dewey and American Democracy. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press. ----------. 2005. Democratic Hope: Pragmatism and the Politics of Truth. Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press. 67 A CASE STUDY ON THE LIMITS OF IRONIC REDESCRIPTION: think that "the importance of the linguistic turn lies in RORTY ON WITTGENSTEIN helping us realize that philosophers have failed to give Istvan Danka meaning to the words they utter", whereas certain (University of Leeds, danka.istvan@gmail.com) pragmatists called 'pragmatic Wittgensteinians' (most 1 notably, Rorty himself) hold that "replacing Kantian talk about experience, thought, and consciousness with Wittgensteinian talk about the uses of linguistic In this paper I shall examine Rorty's interpretation of, expressions helps us replace worse philosophical and his relation to, Wittgenstein. After placing his theories with better ones" (Rorty 2007, p. 163). Though reading of Wittgenstein into a context of other pragmatist Wittgensteinians "see no point in picking out interpretations, I shall argue that the central issues for something Rorty regarding Wittgenstein are representationalism philosophical problems" (Rorty 2007, p. 166), they think and mysticism. Generally, he is interested in the later that speaking in linguistic terms instead of terms of Wittgenstein because he provides good arguments experience and consciousness helped Wittgensteinians against representationalism without mysticism, and he is overcoming Cartesian pseudo-problems of philosophy. called 'language' as the source of uninterested in the early Wittgenstein because he is a representationalist and/or a Schopenhauerian mystical Wittgenstein is often used as an authority that gives an thinker. I shall claim that for some of Rorty's central emphasis to views that are attributed to him without purposes, is sufficient evidence that he really held those. There are Wittgensteinian. This makes Wittgenstein special among philosophers who saw Wittgenstein as an ancestor of Rorty's heroes in a certain sense. Then I shall argue that their own views (in some aspects at least). Dummett even though Rorty's Wittgenstein seems to imply a (1978), Kripke (1982), Brandom (1994) and Putnam constructive doctrine, both Wittgenstein and Rorty draw (1999) (or Habermas and Lytoard in the Continental only the negative conclusions of them. Finally, I shall tradition, see Redding (1986)) are Wittgensteinian in allude to a reading of the Tractatus that could well fit some important sense without having close readings of into an ironic redescription of the early Wittgenstein the author. Someone might argue that they directly which could make him a positive hero of Rorty. interpret Wittgenstein's passages but their readings are However, Rorty intentionally rejects this reading, giving selective, supporting their own views (or at least the up, in favour of his pragmatism, not only a "thorough views they attribute to Wittgenstein). They are problem- Wittgensteinianism" but a thorough Rortyanism as well. oriented rather than text-based followers of him who the most suitable framework 2 see Wittgenstein as a highly important figure in the Wittgenstein's role in current philosophy Rorty claims that "[t]here are profound differences of opinion among contemporary philosophers both about whether Wittgenstein is worth reading and about what one can learn from him" (Rorty 2007, p. 160). Rorty th divides how late 20 -century philosophers relate to Wittgenstein into three categories. First, he argues that naturalists (as he calls them) "want to get past the linguistic turn", and hence want to get past Wittgenstein as well. So-called therapist followers of Wittgenstein 1 As 'pragmatic' refers to pragmatics rather than pragmatism, below I shall follow my own terminology and call Rorty's pragmatic Wittgensteinians as pragmatist Wittgensteinians. 2 There is no place here for supporting this double hypothesis in details. I would only mention one ironic remark made by the late Sir Michael A. E. Dummett about his earlier period: "I regarded myself, doubtless wrongly, as a Wittgensteinian" (Dummett 1993, p. 171). I find this paradigmatic regarding (once) Wittgensteinians: in my view, beyond the most famous, general views of him, quite a few contemporary philosophers would support Wittgenstein's thinking after having a close reading of at least a considerable part of the approx. 20,000 pages of his Nachlass (see Wittgenstein 2000). A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka history of philosophy, whose work has to be understood the history only to a degree to which historical in a wider context. This approach is very far from investigations serve as tools for a better future. He is Wittgenstein scholarship in a traditional sense in which also interested in problems of philosophy only to a Wittgenstein's remarks are important directly by their degree to which investigations on truth serve as tools for own right, and in which e.g. superficial inconsistencies a better future. He claims, nonetheless, that whereas between different paragraphs can be treated as investigations on the field of history of philosophy do historical facts rather than anomalies that have to be serve as such tools (precisely because we can apply the eliminated. are views of past philosophers to present problems of ours), interested in Wittgenstein's arguments rather than his investigations focusing on eternal problems do not serve opinion because they are more interested in truth than as any such tools. This line of thought seems to suggest facts of history of philosophy – they need his texts that Rorty is closer to the approach of historians than insofar as those texts support certain views or, on the that of the problem-oriented analytic philosophers. But contrary, provide counter-arguments which have to be it is not an accident that I have formulated the refuted by them or their opponents. difference between these two trends as a difference Problem-based Wittgensteinians between text-based and problem-oriented views. Even Rorty's reading of Wittgenstein: Some methodological though Rorty prefers dealing with texts to dealing with remarks eternal problems, he also prefers dealing with contemporary problems to dealing with out-of-date Rorty is definitely closer to the problem-based texts. He finds central problems of philosophy being Wittgensteinians than the historians of Wittgenstein's different from the problems most problem-oriented ideas. He claims that "[p]ragmatic Wittgensteinians do philosophers deal with. He thinks central problems are not want to recapture Wittgenstein's own way of external to the philosophical tradition; i.e., problems thinking, but rather to restate his best arguments in cannot be found in the texts themselves. He follows more effective ways" (Rorty 2007, p. 165). As often in Hegel in thinking that central problems of philosophy are the case of other heroes of him, Rorty subordinates his always understanding of Wittgenstein to the purpose he contemporary society. In this sense, he is even less text- attributes to the Austrian philosopher in his picture of based than those problem-oriented philosophers who history of philosophy, dividing the Great Dead apply arguments from past texts to (allegedly eternal) Philosophers into good and bad guys. Wittgenstein is not problems of recent texts. Problems are out there; all an exception; moreover, due to the fact that it is used to what texts can provide are arguments and other sorts of think we have got (at least) two Wittgensteins, the early tool with which we can try to solve our very own and the late, he can be straightforwardly placed into problems. up-to-date general problems of the both categories. In this spirit, it would be extremely anti-Rortyan to argue However, there is an apparent contradiction between that the claim that Rorty is close in reading Wittgenstein to Wittgenstein. For him, Wittgenstein, as any other the problem-oriented thinkers on the one hand, and thinker, is important precisely insofar as his thoughts Rorty's own philosophical stance regarding philosophical support achieving our own goals. Hence, at least in the problems on the other. From Rorty's general approach first instance, Rorty's Wittgenstein can be quite well to philosophy, it would be odd to say that he is more reconstructed without any interested in (allegedly eternal) problems of philosophy Wittgenstein or the literature on him. It is much more than a history of philosophy. Rather he is interested in important to understand how Rorty's Wittgenstein Rorty "understood" or "misunderstood" serious reflection on 69 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka relates to Rorty's interpretation of some other correspondence theory of truth), that attempted to philosophers, and philosophy in general. That is not the establish a bridge between appearance and reality. same as saying that it is unimportant what Wittgenstein However, without the pre-modern belief in the supra- said, but where a conflict rises between his thinking and natural, there is no need to suppose anything outside Rorty's understanding of him, for the purposes of this appearances; hence, the bridge that Cartesians, Kantians paper, I shall accept Rorty's views as superior to and Fregeans are building is a useless one. Wittgenstein's. If inconsistency were to be demonstrated, it would have to be an inconsistency In this picture of the history of philosophy, Wittgenstein between Rorty's interpretation and his thinking in takes a very special place. As mentioned above, his early general. Tractatus was one of the major contributions to a transformation of the Cartesian-Kantian epistemological project into a linguistic approach. The Tractatus Wittgenstein's role for a Rortyan perspective I. establishes a one-to-one correspondence between the Rorty sometimes seems to imply something like an "end realm of facts and propositions, claiming that the two of philosophy" but his reason is that he understands are "philosophy" much more specifically in these contexts. In representations of facts; knowing a fact is therefore his seminal book Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature holding a true proposition about it. This work is one of Rorty criticises the view that perception, knowledge and the most comprehensive elaborations of the idea that language was representation establishes a bridge between reality and correspondence (Rorty 1979). When declaring the end of appearance – and hence is one of the main targets of the philosophy, he does not attack non-correspondentist and Rortyan criticism. were representational and truth isomorphic. True propositions are correct non-representational theories of truth and knowledge. 70 He argues against a very specific notion of philosophy, It is also widely held that in his later period, Wittgenstein though that notion was the obligate in his academic himself significantly contributed to the destruction of his environment: the paradigm of philosophy that has been own views. From 1929, he had started developing a set up by the Descartes-Kant epistemological tradition theory of meaning that finally resulted in a view that is and then transformed into a linguistic version by Frege, mostly interpreted as abandoning the requirement of a Russell, Carnap, and the early Wittgenstein. An end of theory of meaning. Whether the late Wittgenstein held a philosophy would mean an end of this sort of theory of meaning or a non-theoretical approach to philosophy: the view according to which language and meaning is an issue not discussed here; but it could be thinking is representational; or words and thoughts hardly denied that Wittgenstein developed an idea of correspond to facts that makes (at least some of) them language that gave up representation and corres- meaningful and true. According to Rorty, this paradigm pondence as central notions. What, if any, his of philosophy reached its limits, it ignores the actual constructive view about language and thought was in his problems of the society which gave birth to it, and the later period is a matter of debates (and so is the reason why it has to be abandoned is focusing on other, supposition how many different "later" periods he had), more vivid and urgent problems, in order to make but for Rorty, the destructive movement is the more philosophy socially more useful. Philosophy in this sense important, since this is what raises Wittgenstein out of started in the ancient Greece with the distinction the group of representationalist philosophers and makes between appearance and reality, and reached its limits him to be one of Rorty's heroes like Dewey, Heidegger, with the representational theory of knowledge and Quine, Davidson, Derrida, and others. However, what language makes Wittgenstein special to him cannot simply be a (which is closely connected to the A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka rejection of antirepresentationalism, precisely because terrain from the battlefield where one of the untenable all of his heroes do so. In order to understand why Rorty positions has to be taken necessarily. However, this sees Wittgenstein as central, something distinctive must 'stepping back' strategy must be abandoned if language be identified in his thinking that significantly contributes is treated with the later Wittgenstein as social practice to Rorty's views. that is an open, unlimited sphere from which no backstep can and should be done. The early Wittgenstein and mysticism The early Wittgenstein saw "social practice as merely In the camp of Rorty's philosophical ancestors, one social practice" which urged him "thereby rising above reason why Wittgenstein's place is unique is that he it" (Rorty 1991, p. 61) in order to be capable of "fixing related to the representationalism vs. pragmatism issue the limits of language" (Rorty 1982, p. 23). Social in his early and late period differently. Rorty makes a practice became a central notion of the later parallel between the turning from the early to the late Wittgenstein as well as Rorty; they found it unnecessary Wittgenstein and an imaginative turning from the late to seek for something beyond or above it. back to the early Heidegger. The parallel is based on a question of mysticism: both the early Wittgenstein and The later Wittgenstein and representation the late Heidegger held a certain form of mysticism, in late What makes Wittgenstein more special than Heidegger Wittgenstein's pragmatism (Rorty 1991, p. 50-52). is that regarding the parallels between the early According to Rorty, "the older Heidegger retreated from Wittgenstein sentences and discourse to single words - words which tationalism plays no role. Though both the early had to be abandoned as soon as they [...] entered into Heidegger and the late Wittgenstein were antirepresen- relations with other words and thus became tools for tationalists, the late Heidegger is hardly understood as a accomplishing purposes" (Rorty 1991, p. 52). In parallel, representationalist. in the final, "Schopenhauerian sections" of the Tractatus opponent of representationalism precisely because he mysticism occurs as well: "[t]he early Wittgenstein had was, in some readings at least, an earlier defender of it. defined the mystical as 'the sense of the world as a But it is no less important how he rejects represent- limited whole'" (Rorty 1991, p. 50). tationalism. Rorty is resistant to philosophical arguments that claim Rorty claims that there are "philosophers who, as [Rorty] problems or views of philosophy to be 'nonsense'. His do[es], find support in [Wittgenstein's] writings for reason is that "[a]s a result of the popularity of the pragmatist views of truth and knowledge" (Rorty 2007, linguistic turn, 'nonsense' became term of philosophical p. 161). This support undoubtedly comes from art - just as 'representation' had become one in the wake Wittgenstein's Anti-Cartesian philosophical attitude. of Kant. Philosophers began to think of themselves as According to Rorty, the importance of Wittgenstein's specialists in detecting nonsense" (Rorty 2007, p. 171) later thinking lies in that contrast with the early Heidegger's and and the late Heidegger, Wittgenstein was a represen- thorough and he prefers thinking of philosophers as no kind of detectives and philosophy as having no special fields to detect. Wittgenstein's early transcendentalism, just as Kant's own one, is a strategy of 'stepping back' to a neutral "[The Philosophical Investigations] is the first great work of polemic against the Cartesian tradition which does not take the form of saying 'philosophers from Descartes onward have thought that the relation between man and the world is so-and-so, but I now show you that it is such-and-such'" (Rorty 1982, pp. 33-34). 71 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka For the later Wittgenstein, the central issue of component of which is "thorough Wittgensteinianism" in philosophy was no more establishing the relation the approach to language. between humans and the rest of the world – a task that has traditionally been thought to be done by theories of Wittgenstein's attack on representationalism can be representation. Wittgenstein rejected the question what summarised in two central claims as follows: this relation lies in, dissolving rather than solving the (1) Meaning atomism is untenable. problem. (2) Individual language use is impossible. Rorty emphasises the later Wittgenstein's views From this, it follows (though quite indirectly) that (3) Representationalism is false. regarding ostensive definition, private language, and rule following as central in his thinking (Rorty 2007, p. 165). This syllogism has to be explained in some details. He thinks that Wittgenstein anticipates Quine's and Davidson's arguments against the language-fact dis- Meaning contextualism and language use as social tinction as well as Sellars's and Brandom's arguments activity against the idea of knowledge by acquaintance. For (1), Wittgenstein argues that ostensive definitions Nevertheless, representationalism is perhaps the central are necessarily ambiguous. If someone did not know issue in Rorty's relation to the later Wittgenstein. In what the word "red" means, it would help her nothing if Rorty's view, a red card were provided since without a previous understanding of what red is, she would not know "To drop the idea of languages as representations, and to be thoroughly Wittgensteinian in our approach to language, would be to de-divinize the world. Only if we do that can we fully accept the argument I offered earlier – the argument that since truth is a property of sentences, since sentences are dependent for their existence upon vocabularies, and since vocabularies are made by human beings, so are truths" (Rorty 1989, p. 21). whether a red card represents redness, cards, squares, paper, the number one, or nothing at all. Similarly, if she had a mental picture of red in her mind, she would still need to understand what its redness lies in, in order to be able to apply it to red objects. Mental images support knowledge and meaning no more than physical pictures, and without a fixed system of reference, pictures or Here Rorty claims that a central thesis of him, namely images do not represent anything. However, it is that truths (in plural and with a decapitalised "t") are precisely the system of reference that should be human constructs, presupposes a Wittgensteinian established by representation. attitude toward language. Without accepting (the later) Wittgenstein's views about language, one cannot follow Hence, one should not define meanings in terms of one- Rorty in accepting antirealism (or, one might say, to-one correspondence. A possible way can be defining constructivism) regarding truth. The reason is, Rorty meaning contextually. It involves that atomic building explains, that the claim that truths are human constructs blocks of Fregeans and Tractarians are meaningless hangs upon the claim that vocabularies are human without a holistic, or at least contextual, background. If it constructs, and sentences (i.e., the bearers of truth) are is the context that fixes meaning and the system of vocabulary-dependent. Hence, it seems that it is not reference required, meaning and reference is relative to sufficient to reject representationalism; in order to the context. At least one powerful denial of meaning follow Rorty in his most radical and controversial claim, atomism is explaining the meaning of a word in terms of one has to reject it in a specific way, at least one its relation to other words. It is what Wittgensteinians mean by the meaning-use identity: word meaning is 72 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka determined by, and can be explained in terms of, its From ((1') & (2')), it is easier to see how (3) follows. usage in different contexts. In other words, Representation is thought to be a one-to-one correspondence between entities of reality and objects appear to the mind. But if (1'), i.e., meaning (and hence (1') Meaning is contextual. knowledge) is contextual, no method of isolating singular For (2), Wittgenstein argues that from the perspective of objects can be provided. Without the bridgehead on the an individual, no criteria of correct rule following can be side of appearances, no bridge of representation can fixed – i.e., an individual can never be sure whether she connect appearances to reality. Representation is follows a rule correctly (or she follows another rule therefore worthless if possible. But it would still be an correctly, or eventually she does not even follow any extremely dangerous position, from which scepticism, rule). The reason is that all she has got is patterns that subjectivism are understood in terms of rules only under certain Moreover, as a consequence, even more emphasis descriptions. Hence, her recognition of a rule depends would be given to the mystical Kantian-Tractarian on her own description, being description-relative, and question of "the limits of language". or relativism could equally follow. in an individual framework, she has no ground for comparing her descriptions to anything but the pattern But if (2'), i.e., contexts as socially constructed systems under her description. of reference do fix meaning without fixing any limits of language, there is something that makes a connection Thinking (and language use) are explained as rule between reality and humans not only impossible but following activity since Kant's account of conceptuality unnecessary as well. Knowledge and meaning via and schematism. As any other rule-following activity, language use and social activities are embedded into thinking and language use can also be understood only reality. No correspondence is required, precisely for the relative to a description. In order to avoid an all-out reason that because of the overlap, no isomorphy textbook meaning supposed by the Tractatus is possible. Setting up the scepticism, the only possible way is explaining rule- "limits of language" is also not an issue: language is following activities in a social framework, in which the continuous via social practice with the rest of reality, and "objective" (i.e., intersubjective) criteria of correctness hence no clear borders of it can or should be are publicly accessible and being subject to comparison. established. If (1') then representation theories (at least From this, it also follows that a "private language" in their present form) are impossible, but if (2') then they (supposed to be an individual, subjective mental rule- are also theoretically unnecessary since there is a more following activity that is privately accessible only to one's useful framework that can still explain the same own mind) is nonsense: without public criteria, rule- explanandum. relativism and/or a Kripkean following is impossible. Private language can be imagined as parasitic on public language at most, hence Wittgenstein's role for a Rortyan perspective II. being both temporarily and logically secondary to social language use and thinking. Hence, from (2), it follows After all, I can come back to the question why that Wittgenstein is so special to Rorty. Contexts used to be called as language games by Wittgensteinians, and (2') Language use and knowledge acquisition are sometimes vocabularies by Rortyans. In the light of this, social phenomena. it can be seen why Rorty claimed that in order to accept his claim that truth is a human construct, one has to follow Wittgenstein in philosophy of language. For 73 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka Wittgenstein, language use is a context-relative activity representation). The latter distinction between of humans, where the context is fixed by social activity. If assertions and the social practices is less sharp semantic notions like meaning, reference, and truth are (especially on the ground that language use, and hence constituted contextually, and contexts are constituted by asserting, is a sort of social practice). It provides a social rule-following activities, Rorty's argument is unique, monist framework that is immune to a criticism conclusive that humans construct truth. Otherwise the of how connection can be established between the two notion of truth would be open to be understood in terms sides of the distinction precisely because there are no of correspondence and representation (which, if two sides. Wittgenstein is right, would make truth relative to an individualistic and atomistic framework). Such a notion Rorty should celebrate such an account of Wittgenstein's of truth could not be seen as a human construct without thinking if his only purpose would be rejecting falling into relativism, subjectivism, scepticism, and other representationalism and claiming that any truth is a capital crimes of which Rorty is nonetheless often human construct. But from the latter claim he concludes accused. But if a Wittgensteinian account of language is that any philosophical doctrine taken seriously would accepted, according to which language use is social and miss its target. If truths are human constructs, so are contextual, truth cannot be expressed in terms of philosophical theories. Hence, he claims, no constructive individualism which philosophical theory should be developed. About correspondence and representation are groundless and constructive opponents of the Cartesian tradition he hence are relativism, subjectivism, and scepticism. That claims that and atomism, without is why Wittgenstein is a central figure to Rorty. Even though he would have sufficient munitions against representationalism on the grounds of Deweyanism or Heideggerianism, he also needs some grounds for his stronger claim that truth is a human construct. For supporting this, Wittgenstein's philosophy of language seems to him the most powerful weapon. From the above-mentioned, it seems to follow that Wittgenstein did not only argue against representationalism but also provided a constructive theory that founded an arguable response to possible Cartesian criticisms. Rorty claims, "As Wittgenstein grew older... he gradually dropped the notion of the 'limits of language'. So he turned the Tractatus distinction between saying and showing into the distinction between assertions and the social practices which gave meaning to assertions" (Rorty 1991, p. 64). A distinction between saying and showing can be seen as "Typically, attempts to overthrow the traditional problems of modern philosophy have come in the form of proposals about how we ought to think so as to avoid those problems. When Wittgenstein is at his best, he resolutely avoids such constructive criticism and sticks to pure satire. [...] He does not say: the tradition has pictured the world with gaps in it, but here is how the world looks with the gaps closed. Instead he just makes fun of the whole idea that there is something here to be explained" (Rorty 1982, p. 34). Wittgenstein's constructive doctrine about language is self-destructing since it undermines the possibility of any constructive doctrine about language. It is therefore highly supportive for Rorty who has to say something constructively about his own theory of truth and language, but only via throwing away his ladder, i.e., without committing himself to any particular theory of truth and language. Why not to redescribe the Tractatus ironically a residuum of the distinction between the conceptual 74 and the perceptual, and hence is still affected with An understanding of the later Wittgenstein as an anti- dualistic approaches that require a connection between theoretical thinker is mostly popular among those who the internal and the external (typically in terms of Rorty calls as the "therapist" Wittgensteinians. But those A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka therapists like Conant (1989) and Diamond (1991) also For Rorty, the difference between the early and the later claim that "on the whole, the metaphilosophical slogans Wittgenstein is straightforwardly metaphilosophical: of the Tractatus all applied as aptly to the Philosophical they differ in their relation to the general task of Investigations as they did to the early work" (Conant philosophy as a discipline. In accordance with his unique 1989, p. 247). They, as opposed to the commonly held understanding interpretation accepted by Rorty as well, also hold that transcendental unity of the Tractatus and the pluralism the early Wittgenstein did not constantly fight against of language games, Rorty argues that the difference between the the limits of language and thought, but on the contrary: the Tractatus, just as well as the Investigations, attempts to show why such a fight is worthless (Diamond 1991, pp. 184-5). From these and similar remarks, Rorty and others (like Williams 2004) conclude that Conant and Diamond take the connection between the early and "The Tractatus had said: there can be no genuine discursive discipline which deals with those matters called 'the problems of philosophy' for here are the limits of language, and thus of discursive inquiry. The Philosophical Investigations said: there can be as much of a discipline as you care to develop, but do you really wish to do so?" (Rorty 1982, p. 20). later works of Wittgenstein to be too strong, almost claiming that there is only one Wittgenstein. In order to While the Tractatus in the Rortyan interpretation dispel this misunderstanding of them, Conant and attempts (and fails) going beyond the "limits of Diamond argue that language", the Investigations (successfully) attempts going beyond the going-beyond attitude. In the first "If one assumes that the only way to account for the profound changes in Wittgenstein's thought is in terms of his having put forward a metaphysical theory or a theory of meaning or both in his earlier thought, and his having given up the theory or theories later, then one will take resolute readings [i.e., the authors' own view that Rorty calls as "therapist" reading - I.D.] to be committed to 'strong continuity'; but the idea that that is the only way to understand the profound changes in Wittgenstein's thought should in any case be rejected" (ConantDiamond 2004, p. 81). case, this makes philosophy unified but (in some interpretations) nonsense, whereas plural and hence senseless or at least vague in the latter. From a Rortyan perspective, Conant and Diamond transform the later Wittgenstein's pluralist metaphilosophy into a unificationist metaphilosophy of a unified Wittgenstein. Above I have argued that for Rorty, the explicit contrast between the early and the late Wittgenstein is a Whether it is the only way or not, it is undoubtedly the difference between mysticism and pragmatism, though I way how Rorty understands the connection between the have assumed that regarding Rorty's purposes, a early and late works of Wittgenstein. He claims that for similarly significant contrast could be drawn between pragmatist Wittgensteinians like himself, Wittgenstein's early "importance consists in having replaced a bad theory tationalism. I have also assumed, in accordance with about the relation between language and non-language, Rorty's interpretation, that the later Wittgenstein argued such as that offered in the Tractatus, with a better against representationalism via arguing against his own theory, the one offered in the Philosophical representationalism and late antirepresen- earlier views. Investigations" (Rorty 2007, p. 161). (The expression "better theory" should probably not be understood here But if the contrast between the early and the late literally since it would contradict the above-cited "fun of Wittgenstein is blurred, as therapist Wittgensteinians the whole idea that there is something here to be claim, it can have three alternative consequences. explained" (Rorty 1982, p. 34)). Firstly, an opposition between a representationalist and an antirepresentationalist should be seen as less sharp. This is clearly unacceptable for Rorty who sees the 75 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka as It would also be a support for the sort of "thorough central in the opposition between the Plato-Kant Wittgensteinianism" urged by Rorty when claiming the philosophical tradition and pragmatism. Secondly, above-cited statement that "[w]hen Wittgenstein is at Wittgenstein could not be understood as a represent- his best, he resolutely avoids [...] constructive criticism tationalist who later became an antirepresentationalist. and sticks to pure satire" and that Wittgenstein "just representationalist-antirepresentationalist But the Tractatus accepts a debate fact-proposition correspondence and hence it cannot be claimed to be an makes fun of the whole idea that there is something here to be explained" (Rorty 1982, p. 34). antirepresentationalist work (and therefore, if no turning point is supposed, the later Wittgenstein cannot be But Rorty has "no interest in undertaking the project claimed to be an antirepresentationalist either). This Conant describes" (Rorty 2007, p. 169). He admits that would make the later Wittgenstein an uninteresting he grounds his interpretation in a selective reading: figure for Rorty – a too high price for showing limited "pragmatic Wittgensteinians agree with the therapists sympathies toward the early Wittgenstein. Thirdly, one that there are some important links between early and could also say that Wittgenstein's philosophy is late Wittgenstein", but "it would have better for discontinuous - Wittgenstein to have criticized the kind of philosophy he antirepresentationalist debate, but his metaphilosophy disliked on grounds of uselessness rather than as is mystical-pragmatist 'nonsense'" (Rorty 2007, p. 166). Even if one reads the opposition. This would be a well-balanced harmonisation Tractatus from its end backwards, the above-mentioned of the therapist view with the pragmatist one. But Rorty "Schopenhauerian" spirit places the early Wittgenstein rejects this as well. on the side of mysticism in the mysticist - pragmatist continuous regarding the regarding representationalist the opposition (Rorty 1991, p. 50) that proved to be His reason to do so is nevertheless not that he has any philological arguments in order to support unforgivable. his understanding. On the contrary: Rorty says he accepts While arguing against Conant's reading of the Tractatus, the therapist reading as valid, admitting that a possible Rorty dogmatically takes stance against the wild orchids reading of the book is that "Wittgenstein designed the in favour of Trotsky. Tractatus to be a self-consuming artifact" (Rorty 2007, p. 168). It would be a particularly Rortyan interpretation to say that the Tractatus is a masterpiece of deconstruction, intending to include its own ironic redescription in its final paragraphs with the claim that all that Wittgenstein said throughout the book do not "Admirers of Dewey like myself think that the point of reading philosophy books is not selftransformation but rather cultural change. It is not to find a way of altering one's inner state, but rather to find better ways of helping us overcome the past in order to create a better human future" (Rorty 2007, p. 169). touch upon its subject, precisely because of the Pragmatist Wittgensteinians are pragmatists rather than untouchability of that subject. Wittgensteinians or even Rortyans – where those views differ from each other, they, including Rorty himself, choose pragmatism. 76 A C A S E S T U D Y O N T H E L I M I T S O F I R O N I C R E D E S C R I P T I O N : R O R T Y O N W I T T G E N S T E I N Istvan Danka References Brandom, Robert B. (1994) Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Conant, James (1989) "Must We Show What We Cannot Say?" In (R. Fleming and M. Payne eds), The Senses of Stanley Cavell. Lewisburg (PA): Bucknell University Press. pp. 242-283. Conant, James and Diamond, Cora (2004) "On Reading the Tractatus Resolutely." In (M. Kölbel, and B. Weiss eds), The Lasting Significance of Wittgenstein's Philosophy. London: Routledge. pp. 46-99. Diamond, Cora (1991) The Realistic Spirit. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. Dummett, Michael A.E. (1978) Truth and Other Enigmas. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Dummett, Michael A.E. (1993) Grammar and Style for Examination Candidates and Others. London: Duckworth. Guignon, Charles and Hiley, David R. (2003) "Introduction." In (Guignon – Hiley eds.), Richard Rorty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kripke, Saul (1982) Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Putnam, Hilary (1999) The Threefold Cord: Mind, Body, and World. New York: Columbia University Press. Redding, Paul (1986) "Habermas, Lyotard, Wittgenstein: Philosophy at the Limits of Modernity." Thesis Eleven, Vol.14. No.1. pp. 9-25. Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rorty, Richard (1982) "Keeping Philosophy Pure: An Essay on Wittgenstein." In Consequences of Pragmatism. Essays: 1972-1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Rorty, Richard (1989) Contingency, Irony, Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, Richard (1991) "Wittgenstein, Heidegger and the Reification of Language." In his Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, Richard (2007) "Wittgenstein and the Linguistic Turn." In his Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Philosophical Papers Vol.4. Williams, Meredith (2004) "Nonsense and Cosmic Exile: The Austere Reading of the Tractatus." In (M. Kölbel, and B. Weiss eds), The Lasting Significance of Wittgenstein's Philosophy. London: Routledge. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (2000) Nachlass. The Bergen Electronic Edition. Oxford-Bergen: Oxford University Press. 77 MARTIN HEIDEGGER’S INFLUENCE ON RICHARD Solidarity (CIS) and Philosophy and Social Hope (PSH) to RORTY’S PHILOSOPHY his posthumous work, Philosophy as Cultural Politics Alexander Kremer (PCP). We can also mention his interviews and lectures, (University of Szeged, kremeralexander5@gmail.com) in which Rorty evaluated and criticized Heidegger several times. Unquestionably, Heidegger is one of the thinkers who influenced Rorty’s philosophical development very strongly: both his confrontation with analytic I) Introduction philosophers and his neopragmatic renaissance. In order to shed more light on the following train of In the present case, however, I naturally have to limit the thought I have to start with three general preliminary scope of my research. I am focusing, therefore, only on remarks about my topic. Rorty’s interpretation of Heidegger’s philosophy. I could have chosen several other special topics (truth, history, 1. Philosophical influence appears mostly in the world, language, etc.), but I am persuaded that on a interpretations of the influenced. It is almost always general level we can understand a relationship between possible to write a monograph on the relationship of two two philosophers mostly through examining their world-famous philosophers. This is especially the case if interpretations of philosophy, since this provides a sort they belong to essentially the same culture and one of of frame for their thinking. On the following pages, using them has confessed the other’s influence. In addition, the method of philosophical hermeneutics, I will provide the earlier thinker had also evaluated openly the a general survey of Rorty’s Heidegger-interpretation in philosophical background of his latter „colleague,” i. e. the above mentioned field on the basis of his main books pragmatism. In the Heidegger-Rorty case, we can easily and papers. recognize such a situation. 1 Furthermore, the interpretations under consideration are also rich, multi- 2. Our philosophers. There might be lots of readers who faceted, and show historical changes. As we have do not know too much about Heidegger and Rorty. Let recognized in similar cases, it is also possible that the me summarize for them, in a short form, the main earlier philospher’s influence is more considerable than philosophical views of our philosophers. the interpreting philosopher acknowledges it to be. (We can recognize this even in the case of Heidegger if we Martin Heidegger (Sep 26, 1889 – May 26, 1976) remember, e. g., Kierkegaard’s influence.) Nevertheless, achieved the ontological turn in Western philosophy and it is extremely easy to get lost in the field of hypotheses wanted to answer the question of Being (Sein) if we base our theory only on guesses. That is why I throughout his whole life. He combined his ontological reconstruct first of all Rorty’s own intentions, for he approach with his transformed version of Husserlian wanted to write a book on Heidegger, but he never phenomenology and philosophical hermeneutics. (The completed this Heidegger monograph. However, he latter was established by Heidegger himself in the wrote on Heidegger many times independently from this 1920s.) The early Heidegger (1919-1929) wanted to fulfill intention. It has occurred in his writings from the 1970s his project in Being and Time (BT), that is, to create a in Consequences of Pragmatism (CP), through the pages fundamental ontology through an existential analysis of of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (PMN), Essays on Dasein, but his work remained a torso. After „the Turn” Heidegger and Others (EHO), Contingency, Irony and (die Kehre, 1929-1935), the late Heidegger (1935-1976) evaluated his early work, BT as a subject-centered 1 See Heidegger’s and Rorty’s main works and abbreviations in references philosophy, and absolutely neglected the existential M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer analysis. The late Heidegger focused directly on Being, II/A) on the history of Being and Ereignis. Heidegger’s influence on the early Rorty (1958-1979-1982) Richard McKay Rorty (Oct 4, 1931 – Jun 8, 2007) is the a) The early Rorty had already read lots of texts from the founder of neopragmatism, an American, leftist patriot, late Heidegger. As we know, the late Heidegger did not who had a long and varied career. He thoroughly think highly of traditional pragmatism, nevertheless the criticized analytic philosophy in his Philosophy and the neopragmatic Rorty for the whole of his life treated Mirror of Nature (PMN, 1979) and after leaving the Heidegger as one of the exceptional thinkers of Western analytic tradition he established neopragmatism (CIS, philosophy. Rorty considered Heidegger the most 1989) as an anti-metaphysical, anti-foundationalist, anti- influential essentialist, and naturalist, pan-relationist, meliorist neopragmatic philosophy. Rorty is one of those American philosophers, different emphases in different periods of Rorty’s oeuvre who also knows well the Continental tradition of due to the historical dimension of his interpretation. In philosophy in addition to Anglo-Saxon philosophical one of his interviews in 1994, Rorty confessed the movements. He was influenced, first of all, by a tradition following: European turn, thinker regarding although Heidegger his own received of post-Darwinian American philosophy (James, Dewey, Kuhn, Quine, Putnam, Davidson) and a tradition of postNietzschean European philosophy (Heidegger, Sartre, Gadamer, Derrida, Foucault). 3. The structure of my paper. Rorty’s relation to Heidegger shows a historical change. It is worth distinguishing at least two main periods within Rorty’s Heidegger-interpretation. Essentially, this distinction gives the structure of my paper together with the final chapter: II/A II/B III Heidegger’s influence on the early Rorty (1958-1979-1982) Heidegger’s influence on the late Rorty (1983-1989-2007) 1. Rorty on the early Heidegger after 1989 2. Rorty on the late Heidegger after 1989 Heidegger’s Nazism from Rorty’s point of view BORRADORI: Who is the „Continental” author who has had the most influence on your philosophy? RORTY: I would say, Martin Heidegger. I first read him in the late fifties because I was curious about what was happening in Europe. BORRADORI: Which Heidegger interested you most: the existential Heidegger of Being and Time, or the hermeneutic Heidegger of Holzwege? RORTY: At the beginning, the only work we knew about was Being and Time. Until the early sixties, even in Europe, Heidegger meant Being and Time. BORRADORI: In Italy today, some philosophers, like Gianni Vattimo, tend to unite the two phases of Heideggerian thought into a single curve, thereby incorporating the existential Heidegger into a new postmetaphysical perspective. What do you think? RORTY: I agree. I prefer to think that Heidegger struggled all his life to reach one objective: selfovercoming. The Letter on Humanism repudiates Being and Time in the same way that What Is Thinking? repudiates the Letter on Humanism. This is significant for the „Heidegger case” and his relationship to Nazism. (TFT 38-39) Rorty regarded Heidegger’s permanent self- transcendation as the inducement and essence of his oeuvre! However, we can recognize that Rorty did the same, but in a more radical way. There is obviously a self-conscious self-transcendation also in Rorty’s oeuvre, but he does not stop there, where Heidegger does. Rorty admired talented, imaginative, provocative, and innovative thinkers, because he himself had a similar 79 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer 5 personality. Rorty had a double vein, and during his Mark Okrent’s book in 1988. While writing the Mirror, whole life he always consciously tried to harmonize the Rorty had already known Heidegger after the ’Turn’ dimensions of his private self-creation and his public life (Kehre), for he had read Heidegger’s works after the that was constantly connected to the purpose of a liberal Kehre from the beginning of the 1960s, but he had not democracy, that is, to solidarity, social justice, and interpreted Being and Time as a pragmatist work. freedom. 2 c) According to PMN, Heidegger is a revolutionary and In his very personal autobiography, „Trotsky and the edifying philosopher. At the time, Rorty celebrated Wild Orchids” (1992) Rorty has recollected the early Heidegger, results of Heidegger’s philosophical influence in this way: Wittgenstein, only as one of the most important together with Dewey and the late philosophers of the 20th century: About 20 years or so after I decided that the young Hegel’s willingness to stop trying for eternity, and just be the child of his time, was the appropriate response to disillusionment with 3 Plato, I found myself being led back to Dewey. Dewey now seemed to me a philosopher who had learned all that Hegel had to teach about how to eschew certainty and eternity, while immunizing himself against pantheism by taking Darwin seriously. This rediscovery of Dewey coincided with my first encounter with Derrida (which I owe to Jonathan Arac, my colleague at Princeton). Derrida led me back to Heidegger, and I was struck by the resemblances between Dewey’s, Wittgenstein’s and Heidegger’s criticisms of Cartesianism. Suddenly things began to come together. I thought I saw a way to blend a criticism of the Cartesian tradition with the quasi-Hegelian historicism of Michel Foucault, Ian Hacking and Alasdir MacIntyre. I thought that I could fit all these into a quasi-Heideggerian story about the tensions within Platonism. The result of this small epiphany was a book called Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. (PSH 11-12) It is against this background that we should see the work of the three most important philosophers of our century―Wi_genstein, Heidegger, and Dewey. (…) I present Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Dewey as philosophers whose aim is to edify―to help their readers, or society as a whole, break free from outworn vocabularies and attitudes, rather than to provide „grounding” for the intuitions and customs of the present. (PMN 5, 11-12) As is well-known, Rorty had shaken the whole traditional philosophy in the Mirror from his new metaphilosophical point of view. He brought into question not only the concept of ’analytic philosophy’ by developing further the self-critique of the best representatives of that philosophical movement in those days (Sellars, Quine, Davidson, Ryle, Malcolm, Kuhn and Putnam), but even that of ’philosophy’ itself. After b) The early Rorty had not interpreted the early Heidegger as a pragmatist yet. The first period of Rorty’s Heidegger-interpretation is the epoch of PMN and CP. When Rorty launched the PMN (1979) and when the CP was published (1982), it was just after his „conversion”: he converted from analytic philosophy to neopragmatism that he had established. In those days analysing and repudiating the traditional concepts of ’mind’, ’knowledge’ and ’philosophy’ in the three main parts of PMN, in its last chapter he classified philosophers with Kuhnian words into normal and revolutionary types. Then Rorty made a distinction within the revolutionary type between the systematic philosophers and the edifying philosophers: we cannot speak about his pragmatist interpretation of The mainstream philosophers are the philosophers I shall call „systematic,” and the peripheral ones are those I shall call „edifying.” These peripheral, pragmatic philosophers are skeptical primarily about systematic philosophy, about the whole project of universal commensuration. In our time, Dewey, Being and Time, because he recognized this possibility 4 only after reading Robert Brandom’s article in 1983 and 2 See my treaties in refrences. Thus, it happened in the middle of the 1970s. 4 Robert Brandom, „Heidegger’s Categories in Being and Time,” The Monist, 60 (1983) 3 80 5 Mark Okrent. Heidegger’s Pragmatism. Itacha, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988. M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer Wittgenstein, and Heidegger are the great edifying, peripheral, thinkers. All three make it as difficult as possible to take their thought as expressing views on traditional philosophical problems, or as making constructive proposals for philosophy as a cooperative and progressive discipline. They make fun of the classic picture of man, the picture which contains systematic philosophy, the search for universal commensuration in a final vocabulary. They hammer away at the holistic point that words take their meanings from other words rather than by virtue of their representative character, and the corollary that vocabularies acquire their privileges from the men who use them rather than from their transparency to the real. (PMN 367-368) II/B) Heidegger’s influence on the late Rorty (1983-1989-2007) Rorty’s neopragmatism has changed in the 1980s, because he did not express himself first of all in critiques (as he did in PMN), but he worked out his own views. They were published in his book, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (1989). His main aim here is to deny the possibility of a philosophical single vision, that is to refute the metaphysical type of philosophical theories which „allegedly” describe the essential, unchangeable structure of the world. Instead of this kind of philosophy, But we cannnot speak about a pragmatist interpretation Rorty suggested we accept the public-private distinction of the early Heidegger’s philosophy neither in Rorty’s not only in our everyday life, but also in the field of Mirror, nor in Rorty’s CP, which has first of all historical philosophy. In his opinion, we can speak about the reasons. CP primarily contains Rorty’s articles from the philosophers of the public who deal with the questions period of 1972-1980, that is those articles which were of social development and about the philosophers of the written before the Mirror or during the time he was private who deal first of all with the questions of self- writing the Mirror (e.g. “Overcoming the Tradition: creation, Heidegger and Dewey” from 1976 and “Dewey’s vocabularies, and we have to handle them separately Metaphysics” from 1977). It would allude to a like brushes and wrenches. They are—according to schizophrenic state of mind if the CP’s Heidegger- Rorty―different tools for different purposes, and it is interpretation were greatly different from the Mirror’s prohibited to mix them. Rorty created also a new theory one. of solidarity, which says that solidarity is not given for us, self-perfection. These mean different but it is regarded as a goal to be achieved. He also d) Heidegger’s main conribution is his recounting of the sketched in CIS a liberal utopia which is a liberal history of ontology. Husserl and Russell belong to the democracy of the future created by the people who will systematic philosophers, but Heidegger belongs to the be liberal ironists. This is a new type of human edifying philosophers, and his greatest contribution is, personality. According to Rorty, ’liberals are the people according to Rorty, the historical awareness and critical who think that cruelty is the worst thing we do.’ He uses distance achieved by his descriptions of the history of „ironist” ’to name the sort of person who faces up to the ontology. It has created historical distance from, and contingency of his or her own most central beliefs and awarness of, the tradition of the history of ontology: desires’ (CIS xv), that is if he or she accepts the contingency of the main columns of his or her life But Wittgenstein’s flair for deconstructing captivating pictures needs to be supplemented by historical awarness – awarness of the source of all this mirror-imagery – and that seems to me Heidegger’s greatest contribution. Heidegger’s way of recounting history of philosophy lets us see the beginnings of the Cartesian imagery in the Greeks and the metamorphoses of this imagery during the last three centuries. He thus lets us „distance” ourselves from the tradition. (PMN 12) (language, self and community) (cf. CIS Ch 1, 2 and 3). His friend, Richard Bernstein claimed that there was an additional aesthetic strain to Rorty’s writings that become more and more pronounced since the 1980s, a claim that Rorty accepted. The second period of Rorty’s Heidegger-interpretation started in 1983, when he read Brandom’s above 81 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer mentioned article („Heidegger’s Categories in Being and claim that the analytic of Dasein is fundamental Time”). It is important to emphasize that Rorty wrote ontology. As further examples we can mention the almost at the same time the Heidegger-texts of the CIS relationship between the ready-to-hand and the (published in 1989) and that of the EHO (published in presence-at-hand entities, and also the question of 1991), that is, these text were written or altered in the truth. The existential-ontological primacy of the ready- second half of the 1980s. That is why they are saturated to-hand to the presence-at-hand is possible exclusively essentially with the same Heidegger interpretation. on the basis of the pragmatic circumspective dealing According to my thesis, (a) from the middle of the 1980s (Umgang), which has a priority to discursive recognition. Rorty had interpreted Heidegger’s Being and Time in a Similarly, the existential-ontological conception of truth pragmatist way and (b) as a representative of the radical can also lay the foundation of the epistemological truth historicity. But Rorty had interpreted the late Heidegger only in the case of a pragmatist approach. Other first (a) as a representative of the radical historicity (it examples of this from Being and Time could also be assured a kind of continuity in his Heidegger- enumerated. In accordance with all of this Rorty claims interpretation); second (b) as a defender of poetry who that: was not radical enough; third (c) as a person who had opted for pragmatism in a wry and ironic way; and finally (d) as the refuser of the public sphere. 1) Rorty on the early Heidegger after 1989 a) Rorty interprets the early Heidegger as a pragmatist from 1983. The Rortyan evaluation of the early Heidegger is shown nicely in his following sentences: This qualified sympathy for pragmatism is clearest in Being and Time, the book which Dewey described as „sounding like a description of ’the situation’ in transcendental German.” In Part I of his Heidegger’s Pragmatism, Mark Okrent has shown, very carefully and lucidly, how to read Being and Time as a pragmatist treatise. (…) With Okrent, I read Division One of Being and Time as a recapitulation of the standard pragmatist arguments against Plato and Descartes. I read Division Two, and in particular the discussion of Hegelian historicism, as recapitulating Nietzsche’s criticism of Hegel’s attempt to escape finitude by losing himself in the dramas of history. (EHO 32, 33) Rorty accepts Brandom’s, Okrent’s and Charles Guignon’s interpretation that the center of Being and 82 One can imagine a possible Heidegger who, after formulating the Dewey-like social-practice pragmatism of the early sections of Being and Time, would have felt that his job was pretty well done. But the early Heidegger was driven by the same urge to purity which drove the early Wittgenstein. The same drives which led Heidegger to develop the notions of „authenticity” and „being-toward-death” in the later portions of Sein und Zeit led Wittgenstein to write the final section of the Tractatus – the sections in which the doctrine of showing is extended from logic to ethics. (EHO 60-61) In harmony with this interpretation, Rorty claims in several places that Being does not even have an essential ontological role in Being and Time. In his opinion, Heidegger regarded Being only as a good example to emphasize the importance of contingency: The reason Heidegger talks about Being is not that he wants to direct our attention to an unfortunately neglected topic of inquiry, but that he wants to direct our attention to the difference between inquiry and poetry, between struggling for power and accepting contingency. He wants to suggest what a culture might be like in which poetry rather than philosophy-cum-science was the paradigmatic human activity. (EHO 36) Time is a critique of Cartesianism. These writers agree in In other words, according to Rorty, Heidegger wanted to thinking—as Rorty says—that „what Brandom describes evocate the feeling of contingency, that is, the feeling of as the recognition that social practice is determinative of fragility and incalculability of the human activity already what is and is not up to social practice is Heidegger’s in Being and Time. He wanted to emphasize the feeling, crucial insight in this work.” (EHO 60-61) Brandom the approach, that was almost absolutely destroyed by interprets as an expression of this recognition even the the metaphysical ontological tradition. One of the early M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer Heidegger’s methods, formal indication (formale 2) Rorty on the late Heidegger after 1989 Anzeige) served also this aim. Probably not accidentally, but H.-G. Gadamer and J. Grondin characterized similarly a) Radical historicity. In the second epoch, the late Rorty formal indication as something that prohibits dogmatism continued to interpret the late Heidegger as a and calls us on „personal fulfilment.” (Cf. Gadamer 1994, representative of radical historicity. What is more, Rorty Grondin 1991.) On the one hand, it follows from the saw the late Heidegger as a more radical representative basic feature of the Heideggerian phenomenological of historicity than the early Heidegger, because not procedure that it must always be fulfilled personally, and human being (Dasein) but Being (Sein) itself is the procedure cannot be shortened without casualties, characterized first of all by historicity according to the for phenomena in the Heideggerian sense are always late Heidegger. Existential analysis was refuted by the personal. On the other hand, using his conscious late Heidegger as a kind of subject-centered philosophy. procedure prohibits After his philosophical Turn (Kehre), that is after the dogmatism, Heidegger demonstrates that contingency period of 1929-1935, Heidegger did not see Being identified as chance plays a very important role in our through Dasein (as he did in BT), but approached directly life. Rorty also claims on the basis of Heidegger’s texts Being, which he regarded ab ovo historical and saw from (including even his early ones), that the role of language here the entities. This is the period in Heidegger’s oeuvre has (1935-1976), when he deals with the history of Being, of changed formal during indication which Heidegger’s philosophical development: with different epochs of this history, and Ereignis. The late Heidegger focused directly on Being, on the history The stock of language rises as that of Dasein falls, as Heidegger worries more and more about the possibility that his earlier work has been infected with the „humanism” characteristic of the age of the world picture, about the possibility that Sartre had not misread him, and that Husserl had had a point when he said that Being and Time was merely anthropology. More generally, Heidegger’s turn from the earlier question „What are the roots of the traditional ontotheological problematic?” to the later question „Where do we stand in the history of Being?” is accompanied by a desperate anxiety that he be offering something more than, as he puts it, „simply a history of the alterations in human beings’ self-conceptions.” (EHO 62-63) of Being and Ereignis. From his Turn on he has abandoned philosophy as fundamentum absolutum et inconcussum, and the ab ovo historical Being has become his philosophical starting point. In the frame of this history of Being, the history of the European culture and philosophy appeared as a procedure of the increasingly deeper and deeper oblivion of Being (Seinsvergessenheit). However, the general frame of his Heidegger interpretation (and that of the interpretation of other b) The early Heidegger is still the representative of philosophers) is the age-long competition of philosophy radical historicity for the late Rorty. It is obvious if we and poetry in this period. Rorty interpreted even know that in Being and Time human being’s (Dasein) Heidegger’s historicality does not follow from the history of the connection, on the one hand, is emphasized in several of world, from the fact that we are „parts” of history. Quite his texts (CIS, EHO, etc.) as his general philosophical the contrary, according to Heidegger we can create intention. On the other hand, it also holds true with world-history exclusively because we are originally regard to his own intellectual development. Looking at beings characterized by temporality and historicality. We his whole oeuvre from his analytic philosophy to his cannot exist in other ways, and – according to the early neopragmatism, it is obvious that he emphasized not Heidegger – even the so called „supernatural” is only contingency and dominance of metaphors, but also temporal (cf. BT § 5). the importance of literary culture. pragmatism within this frame. This 83 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer b) Competition between philosophy and poetry. When Who is the „strong poet”? As Rorty puts it, the strong comparing philosophy and poetry, the latter (and later – poet is „someone like Galileo, Yeats, or Hegel (a „poet” as we are going to see – the novel) is favoured by Rorty. in my wide sense of the term – the sense of „one who In his opinion, from the 19th century on neither the makes things new”)” (CIS 12-13). Hence it follows that theologian, nor the philosopher, nor the scientist, but the „strong poet” is someone who is able to redescribe much more the poet characterizes our epoch. As long as things in a way that creates a new vocabulary and procedures, initiated by the French Revolution, Romantic changes human practice. It means that the strong poet poetry and classic German Idealism, made clear the idea can be regarded as the possible peak of the freedom that truth is made rather than found, the theologian, the understood as self-creation, someone who renews our philosopher, and the scientist were replaced by the poet way of approach, our social practice. It is true, however, as the main intellectual character of society. In one of his also in connection with the strong poet, that his self is a essays of 2004, „Philosophy as a transitional genre” – at center of narrative gravity, but he is more than an the beginning of an earlier version of this article, everyday person. He is more, because he creates the accepting his friend and colleague, Richart Bernstein’s new redescriptions, the new narratives that are—with claim, that the aesthetic feature is getting stronger and Rorty’s words—the new vocabularies. The strong poet stronger in his oeuvre – Rorty expresses his viewpoint as creates the new vocabularies with the help of metaphors follows: that are expressions without clear and publicly accepted meanings. A metaphor is essentially a sign without a Equipped with these definitions of “redemptive truth” and “intellectual,” I can now state my thesis. It is that the intellectuals of the West have, since the Renaissance, progressed through three stages: they have hoped for redemption first from God, then from philosophy, and now from literature. Monotheistic religion offers hope for redemption through entering into a new relation to a supremely powerful nonhuman person. Belief in the articles of a creed may be only incidental to such a relationship. For philosophy, however, true belief is of the essence: redemption by philosophy would consist in acquiring a set of beliefs that represent things in the one way they truly are. Literature, finally, offers redemption through making the acquaintance of as great a variety of human beings as possible. Here again, as with religion, true belief may be of little importance. (PCP 91) The center of the literary culture is the so called strong poet. Thus Rorty in his Contingency book has showed the contingency of language with the help of Wittgenstein and Davidson, as he utilizes Nietzsche’s and Freud’s help habitual use, a familiar place in a language game, and it will thereby have ceased to be a metaphor. It will have become a dead metaphor. In Rorty’s opinion, the strong poet’s fear of death is always much stronger than that of everyday people. That is why Rorty ascribes far bigger possibilities to poetry than to philosophy in connection with the self-creation belonging to our private sphere, which can stand not only in harmony with the public sphere, but also – in several cases – in contradiction with it. As Rorty puts it: Only poets, Nietzsche suspected, can truly appreciate contingency. The rest of us are doomed to remain philosophers, to insist that there is really only one true lading-list, one true description of the human situation, one universal context of our lives. (CIS 28) for justification of the self’s contingency. Everybody has In the second chapter of his Contingency book, which is a contingent personality, but only the strong poet can entitled „The Contingency of Selfhood,” Rorty analyses recognize in this the possibility of freedom, that is, the the relevant views of Nietzsche and Freud. According to possibility of self-creation. Only the strong poet can Rorty, Nietzsche gives an antidemocratic, but – at the transfer the freedom of recognized necessity into—as same time – radical interpretation of individual freedom Rorty says—the freedom of „recognized contingency” understood as self-creation (CIS 27-28): (cf. CIS 40). 84 publicly accepted, common meaning. It will require a M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer Nietzsche saw self-knowledge as self-creation. The process of coming to know oneself, confronting one's contingency, tracking one's causes home, is identical with the process of inventing a new language - that is, of thinking up some new metaphors. For any literal description of one's individuality, which is to say any use of an inherited language-game for this purpose, will necessarily fail. One will not have traced that idiosyncrasy home but will merely have managed to see it as not idiosyncratic after all, as a specimen reiterating a type, a copy or replica of something which has already been identified. To fail as a poet - and thus, for Nietzsche, to fail as a human being - is to accept somebody else's description of oneself, to execute a previously prepared program, to write, at most, elegant variations on previously written poems. (CIS 2728. – Emphases added.) This is what Heidegger did not want at all! He did not want to become a new philosopher in a queue. He wanted to create a philosophy which could not be transcended. From the 1930s, when he became preoccupied with Nietzsche (who had barely gotten a look-in in Being and Time) until his death, Heidegger concentrates – according to Rorty – only on one question that Heidegger himself had also suffered a defeat in this sense. He could not solve the paradox: „how can we write a historical narrative about metaphysics – about successive attempts to find a redescription of the past which the future will not be able to redescribe – without ourselves becoming metaphysicians?” (CIS 108) It means that Heidegger could not become a defender of such radical poetry. At that time, Rorty had undoubtedly already read the early Heidegger as a pragmatist and the late Heidegger as a radical representative of historicality. In Rorty’s opinion, however, the late Heidegger—„thinking from the Ereignis (the event, the happening, the appropriation),” instead of telling a narrative on the History of Being and Truth—is still a Nietzschean ascetic priest, since his procedure remains essentially the same as that of Plato and Augustine. Heidegger also creates the distinguished place of his own thinking and claims his story as the only remarkable story. Meanwhile, he leaves his fellow humans alone, because he does not deal with their problems and features himself as the saver of his "How can I avoid being one more metaphysician, one more footnote to Plato?" (…) For Heidegger, this task presented itself as the task of how to work within a final vocabulary while somehow simultaneously "bracketing" that vocabulary - to keep the seriousness of its finality while letting it itself express its own contingency. He wanted to construct a vocabulary which would both constantly dismantle itself and constantly take itself seriously. (CIS 110 and 112) epoch precisely by his abstention from action. As an ascetic priest, however, he hopes that he will be able to cleanse himself of, and to distance himself from, what he is looking at. This hope drives him to the thought that there must be some kind of cleansing askesis which makes him able to contact with the Wholly Other, to be saturated with the Openness to Being (cf. EHO 70). However, Rorty says, this is exactly what Heidegger could not manage. One of the examples of the strong poet, worked out in the fifth chapter of the Contingency book, is Martin Heidegger himself. In this chapter, Rorty distinguishes the ironist theory and the ironist novel from metaphysics, and from the competition of the two former ones the ironist novel wins, which also is able to avoid the metaphysical features. The ironist artist creates his works according to the standard of beauty, but the ironist theorist always wants to grasp the universal presuppositions of sublimity, and he always suffers a defeat in this way. Sublimity always creates metaphysics. It follows from this – in Rorty’s opinion – It is enough to recall the charge of the oblivion of Being (Seinsvergessenheit) and the question of Being (Frage nach dem Sein) or later this Wholly Other, and Heidegger’s essentialism becomes entirely obvious, which is—in Rorty’s opinion of the 1990s—already a characteristic of philosophy and poetry. Rorty contrasts with this the novel and its Kundera’s interpretation, that is, he opposes the essentialist culture to the narrative culture, because the former one is featured by philosophy and poetry, but the latter one by novel. As long as the former one is the society of the Thinker and the Poet, the latter one is the society of the intellectuals 85 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer who are able to renew themselves permanently by the force of imagination. (Rorty offers a longer description of that story in his article, „Heidegger, Kundera, Dickens,” published in EHO.) But Rorty is also disturbed by the reification of language in the philosophy of the late Heidegger. As we have already seen, the value of language rises as that of Dasein falls in Heidegger’s eyes. While language does not have a distinguished role in Being and Time, in the 1947 Letter on Humanism it is already „the house of Being,” 6 and from 1951 sentences of the following kind can be read: philosopher as spectator of time and eternity, from the wish to see the world from above „as a limited whole,” the older Heidegger slipped back into a very similar idea. The limited whole which that Heidegger tried to distance himself from was called „metaphysics” or „the West.” For him, „the mystical” became the sense of himself as „thinking after the end of metaphysics” – as looking back on metaphysics, seeing it as a limited, rounded-off whole – and thus as something we might hope to put behind us. The old Heidegger’s final vision was of the West as a single gift of Being, a single Ereignis, a chalice with one handle labeled „Plato” and the other „Nietzsche,” complete and perfect in itself – and therefore, perhaps, capable of being set to one side. (EHO 51) The exceptional philosophical importance of the late Heidegger’s thoughts is without question, but his self- Man acts as though he were the shaper and master of language, while in fact language remains the master of man. (…) For, strictly, it is language that speaks. Man first speaks when, and only when, he responds to language by listening to its appeal. (Poetry, Language, Thought 213-214) overestimation cannot be accepted from a pragmatist point of view, because it is still burdened with metaphysical remains: Rorty understands that Heidegger wants to grasp language not merely as a tool, as Dewey and Wittgenstein did, but as something more than a tool. The late Heidegger treated language as if it were „a quasi-agent, a brooding presence, something that stands over and against human beings.” (EHO 3) It means that Rorty criticizes Heidegger in EHO, because he does not handle language in a naturalistic, Darwinian way, but—in some sense accepting still the Diltheyan distinction between Geist and Natur—he looks at language as if it would be a kind of „God.” Critiques written in his article, „Wittgenstein, language” Heidegger, mean Rorty’s and the protest reification against of „letting „Language” become the latest substitute for „God” or „Mind” – something mysterious, incapable of being described in the same terms in which we describe tables, But the reification of language in the late Heidegger is simply a stage in the hypostatization of Heidegger himself – in the transfiguration of Martin Heidegger from one more creature of his time, one more self constituted by the social practices of his day, one more reactor to the work of others, into a worldhistorical figure, the first postmetaphysical thinker. The hope for such transfiguration is the hope that there is still the possibility of something called „thinking” after the end of philosophy. It is the hope that the thinker can avoid immersion in the „always already disclosed,” avoid relationality, by following a single star, thinking a single thought. (…) From the later Wittgenstein’s naturalistic and pragmatic point of view, we can be grateful to Heidegger for having given us a new languagegame. But we should not see that languagegame as Heidegger did – as a way of distancing and summing up the West. It was, instead, simply one more in a long series of selfconceptions. Heideggerese is only Heidegger’s gift to us, not Being’s gift to Heidegger. (EHO 64 and 65. – Emphases added.) trees, and atoms” (EHO 4). The next sentences c) Heidegger and pragmatism. We can see in the late summarize the essence of Rorty’s actual Heidegger- Heidegger not only a change in his relation to the critique clearly: Western philosophical tradition, but also to pragmatism. His relative sympathy with pragmatism in Being and But although the younger Heidegger worked hard to free himself from the notion of the Time has changed into a wry and ironic opting for pragmatism. Rorty starts his article, „Heidegger, 6 Martin Heidegger. Basic Writings. (ed. by David Farrell Krell) San Francisco: Harper, 1992, 217. 86 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer Contingency, and Pragmatism” (1991) with a claim want” (EHO 29). But, it means that Plato’s requirement regarding Heidegger after his philosophical Turn (Kehre): of the absolute certainty leads us necessarily to pragmatism, that is – according to Heidegger – we can One of the most intriguing features of Heidegger’s later thought is his claim that if you begin with Plato’s motives and assumptions you will end up with some form of pragmatism. I think that this claim is, when suitably interpreted, right. But, unlike Heidegger, I think pragmatism is a good place to end up. (EHO 27) consequently fulfill Plato’s aim only as pragmatists: Once we take this final step, once human desires are admitted into the criterion of „truth,” the last remnants of the Platonic idea of knowledge as contact with an underlying nonhuman order disappear. We have become pragmatists. But we only took the path that leads to pragmatism because Plato told us that we had to take evidence and certainty, and therefore skepticism, seriously. We only became pragmatists because Plato and Aristotle already gave us a technical, instrumental account of what thinking was good for. (EHO 30. – Emphases added.) In this article, Rorty shows the possibility for a pragmatist to go together with Heidegger, and also the point where they have to split their ways. Rorty analyzes first Heidegger’s charge againts pragmatism, then refutes the philosophical presuppositions of Heidegger’s charge, and in this way – in the end – the defendant becomes the accusant, and the accusant becomes the In Rorty’s interpretation, Heidegger says that „if one is defendant. According to Heidegger’s charge, the history going to stay within this tradition, then one might as well of Western philosophy looks like an escalator moving be a pragmatist… So, if the only choice is between down, and nobody can get off before the end station, Platonism and pragmatism, Heidegger would wryly and which is pragmatism. Heidegger summarized these ironically opt for pragmatism.” (EHO 32) The direct conceptional transformations in the second volume of reason of his recognition – in Rorty’s opinion – that can his Nietzsche book, under the title, „Sketches for a already be read in his works at the beginning of the History of Being as Metaphysics.” This condensed the 1920s and on the pages of Being and Time is that history of Western philosophy stretches from the Greek Heidegger woke up to the truth that contingency is a researches of final principles and substances greater permanent part of our lives. The signs of this recognition than human beings, to the American conviction that its are, among others, that the early Heidegger became a ultimate goal is a technologically developed society with philosophical atheist (cf. GA 61); he used consequently things dominated by humans. If somebody accepts the above mentioned formal indication; and, within the Plato’s starting point, then she will wind up on this so called ontological difference, he understood even downward moving escalator with Nietzsche and, as Being only as a phenomenon. It is clear from all of this Rorty ironically says, „worse yet, Dewey.” According to that Heidegger wanted to preserve the force of the most Plato’s starting point the only sense of human thinking is elemental words already in Being and Time (cf. EHO 34), the search for unconditional certainty. That is why and language became more and more important in his Aristotle also claims in Metaphysics that above all, philosophy. Rorty understands these distinguished, most philosophy is a science of „ulimate reasons.” The entire elemental words as metaphors, and that is why this history of metaphysics, in the sense of this onto- tendency of Heidegger’s philosophy means for him the teological tradition which cuts out chance and victory of poetry over philosophy in the late Heidegger contingency, is only a sequence of such interpretations (cf. EHO 34-35). of things, which aims at the ultimate certainty and wants – with Kant’s expression – to lead philosophy on the safe Focusing now on a thought that seems to be a mistake at way of sciences. However, after centuries it became the first glance, it is Rorty’s opinion that Being is not obvious that at the end of these philosophical attempts essential for the early Heidegger. I am persuaded that „the only thing we can be certain about is what we this short excursus of his article, „Heidegger, 87 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer contingency, and pragmatism” (cf. EHO 36-39) has a Heidegger „has any business disliking pragmatism as dominant role in Rorty’s line of thought, because he here much as he does”? (EHO 39) Rorty’s answer seems very offers us Heidegger’s philosophical presuppositions of clear. Sometimes Heidegger seems to accept this logical his charge against pragmatism, and Rorty shows the consequence, „but often, as his use of the term contradiction within Heidegger’s viewpoint. This context „Forgetfulness of Being” suggests, he seems to be saying gives the reason for Rorty’s strong, neopragmatic the opposite.” (EHO 39) Heidegger-interpretation, and it would be difficult to question, from this point of view, that it is a just d) Heidegger and politics. All of the preceding leads us to interpretation. At the same time, it is clear to him what the he is doing in his critical Heidegger-interpretation: interpretation which is very consistent. Both in the political dimension of Rorty’s Heidegger- Contingency book and in the EHO, Rorty presents his I think that Heidegger goes on and on about „the question about Being” without ever answering it because Being is a good example of something we have no criteria for answering questions about. (…) The crucial move in this redescription, as I read Heidegger, is his suggestion that we see the metaphysician’s will to truth as a selfconcealing form of the poetic urge. He wants us to see metaphysics as an inauthentic form of poetry, poetry which thinks of itself as antipoetry, a sequence of metaphors whose authors thought of them as escapes from metaphoricity. He wants us to recapture the force of the most elementary words of Being – the words on the list above, the words of the various Thinkers who mark the stages of our descent from Plato – by ceasing to think of these words as the natural and obvious words to use. We should instead think of this list as as contingent as the contours of an individual cherry blossom. (EHO 36 and 37. – Emphases added.) What is Being then? „Being is what vocabularies are about… More precisely, Being is what final vocabularies are about” (EHO 37). We can learn from the Contingency book and also from EHO, that final vocabularies are not created by the individuals. Final vocabularies are given in a historical way, and we only grow into them, and that is why we can also become aware of their contingency only after acquiring them. If Being cannot be anything else as the final vocabulary of the actual philosophy (e. g. physis or subiectum or Wille zur Macht, which are just abbreviations for whole vocabularies – cf. EHO 37), then Being is not the same thing under all descriptions, but is something different under each. It follows from this, that none of the descriptions of Being could be more or less a true understanding of Being than any other. If this claim is acceptable, then Rorty is right to ask whether 88 viewpoint that Heidegger has never been a believer of solidarity or democracy. In one of his articles, „Philosophy as science, as metaphor, and as politics” Rorty wants to show not only the three main versions of how we conceived of our relation to the Western philosophical tradition in the 20th century, but he also emphasizes the similarities and differencies between Heidegger’s and Dewey’s philosophy (cf. EHO 9). They both refused foundationalism and visual metaphors, but the refusal itself took radically different forms in their works. Rorty examines these differences under two headings. On the one hand, Rorty analyzes their different treatments of the relationship between the metaphorical and the literal. On the other hand, he analyzes their different attitudes towards the relation between philosophy and politics. Only the latter thorough analysis is important for us now: The pragmatist would grant Heidegger’s point that the great thinkers are the most idiosyncratic. They are the people like Hegel or Wittgenstein whose metaphors come out of nowhere, lightning bolts which blaze new trails. But whereas Heidegger thinks that the task of exploring these newly suggested paths of thought is banausic, something which can be left to hacks, the pragmatist thinks that such exploration is the pay-off from the philosopher’s work. He thinks of the thinker as serving the community, and of his thinking as futile unless it is followed up by a reweaving of the community’s web of belief. That reweaving will assimilate, by gradually literalizing, the new metaphors which the thinker has provided. The proper honor to pay to new, vibrantly alive metaphors, is to help them become dead metaphors as quickly as possible, to rapidly reduce them to the status of tools of social M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer progress. The glory of the philosopher’s thought is not that it initially makes everything more difficult (though that is, of course true), but that in the end it makes things easier for everybody. (…) Whereas Heidegger thinks of the social world as existing for the sake of the poet and the thinker, the pragmatist thinks of it the other way round. For Dewey as for Hegel, the point of individual human greatness is its contribution to social freedom, where this is conceived of in the terms we inherit from the French Revolution. (EHO 17 and 18) so Heidegger was chasing the perfection of the philosophical self-creation and became cold-hearted toward the pains of the others in some sense. However, Nabokov was aware of it, and he suffered even from its possibility, but Heidegger visibly did not care about that. According to Habermas, in 1945 Heidegger saw the Holocaust and the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe as two instances of the same phenomenon (cf. EHO 69). In accordance with all of It is obvious for Rorty, that the essential difference these Rorty says that between the Heideggerian and pragmatist attitude towards the philosophical tradition stems from a difference in attitude towards recent political history. As I above mentioned, Rorty always had a double vein and kept himself as the heir of Dewey in some sense. As a precocious child, Rorty had dealt both with the natural but nominous beauty and botanic characteristics of the North American wild orchids, and – according to the Trotskyist tradition of his family – with the life of the oppressed, the poor. (cf. PSH 6-7). During his entire life, Rorty tried to reconcile the private and the public dimensions of his personality. As for Dewey, he was admired not by the philosopher who discussed for decades the nitty-gritty questions of truth, but the thinker who was able to give visions for his audience and readers. Essentially the meliorism of the traditional pragmatism and Dewey’s social democratic commitment belong to the heritage, which is undertaken consciously by Rorty. Dewey and Rorty are both philosophers of democracy. Rorty’s true political commitment can be seen first of all in his Achieving Our Country, but he gave voice to his liberal utopia (do not forget that in Europe „liberal” means social democratic) in several of his works although Heidegger was only accidentally a Nazi, Dewey was essentially a social democrat. His thought has no point when detached from social democratic politics. His pragmatism is an attempt to help achieve the greatest happiness of the greatest number by facilitating the replacement of language, customs, and institutions which impede that happiness. Heidegger dismissed this attempt as one which we can no longer take seriously. (…) The pragmatist agrees with both Husserl and Heidegger (and with Horkheimer and Adorno) that the age of scientific technology may turn out to be the age in which openness and freedom are rationalized out of existence. But his reply is that it might turn out to be the age in which the democratic community becomes the mistress, rather than the servant, of technical rationality. (…) My preference for Dewey over Heidegger is based on the conviction that what Heidegger wanted – something that was not a calculation of means to ends, not power madness – was under his nose all the time. It was the new world which began to emerge with the French Revolution – a world in which futureoriented politics, romantic poetry, and irreligious art made social practices possible in which Heidegger never joined. He never joined them because he never really looked outside of philosophy books. (EHO 19 and 20, plus 48 and 49) III) Heidegger’s Nazism from Rorty’s point of view (CIS, EHO, PSH) and interviews. Heidegger’s Nazism is naturally also part of the As for Heidegger, Rorty admired his philosophical talent, but disliked his anti-democratic attitude and political and social awkwardness. Heidegger „was a miserable human being, but he was also a man of great imaginative power, whose influence will endure” (TFT 94). What Rorty wrote on Nabokov in his Contingency book (CIS 141-168) is valid also – mutatis mutandis – even in connection with Heidegger-Rorty relationship. The first reason is that questions like „Has Heidegger’s politics influenced his philosophy?” and „Can we evaluate his philosophy according to his personality?” belong indirectly to the whole of Heidegger’s philosophy. The second reason is that Rorty himself took up a position on the question of Heidegger’s Nazism, where the turbulent debates Heidegger. As Nabokov was chasing artistic perfection, 89 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer contained many exaggerations. These debates will not be 2) On the other hand, Rorty makes it clear in several dealt with here. On the one hand, I neglect them, places that personality and philosophy do not stand because the analysis of those arguments would need a together necessarily and directly. In his opinion, we monograph. On the other hand, I am persuaded that the cannot justify a perfect and direct congruence of philosophical essence of the debates does not rest on a personality with philosophy, although they surely choice of whether or not Heidegger was a Nazi. It is a influence each other: question of „facts” first of all. The only interesting question here is from a philosophical point of view, namely, to what extent and how Heidegger’s Nazism influenced his philosophy. This is the really important question that needs serious consideration, because we can exclusively understand the merits of the problem only if we have thoroughly thought through the relationships between personality and its intellectual products. Specifically, the relationships between personality and philosophy, and between morality and philosophy. QUESTIONER: Habermas has been active in the current debates over Martin Heidegger’s Nazism, arguing that a deep connection exists between Heidegger’s fascism and his philosophy. Others, such as Derrida, have downplayed the connection. Where do you stand on that question? RORTY: I think Heidegger’s philosophy and his politics can be explained on the basis of some of the same biographical facts. But I don’t think the politics contaminate the philosophy. You can explain Sartre’s Stalinism by reference to the same biographical facts that gave rise to Being and Nothingness, but I don’t think that book is contaminated by the Stalinism. (TFT 32-33) 3) It follows from all of this that Rorty does not share In my opinion, Rorty’s viewpoint is worth mentioning for at least four reasons: 1) On the one hand, Rorty claims clearly that Heidegger was a Nazi. It is part of their relationship, because Rorty sees the main difference between their personalities in their different relations to politics and democracy: I would grant that Heidegger was, from early on, suspicious of democracy and of the ’disenchanted’ world which Weber described. His thought was, indeed, essentially antidemocratic. But lots of Germans who were dubious about democracy and modernity did not become Nazis. Heidegger did because he was both more of a ruthless opportunist and more of a political ignoramus than most of the German intellectuals who shared his doubts. Although Heidegger’s philosophy seems to me not to have specifically totalitarian implications, it does take for granted that attempts to feed the hungry, shorten the working day, etc., just do not have much to do with philosophy. For Heidegger, Christianity is merely a certain decadent form of Platonic metaphysics; the change from pagan to Christian moral consciousness goes unnoticed. The ’social gospel’ side of Christianity which meant most to Tillich (a social democratic thinker who was nevertheless able to appropriate a lot of Heideggerian ideas and jargon) meant nothing to Heidegger. (EHO 19) those arguments that reject Heidegger’s philosophy just because of political and/or moral reasons. 4) Finally, Rorty has ascribed a distinguished role also to moral luck. It follows first of all from his conception of personality which says that every personality is a center of narrative gravity, and its negative content is the exclusion of any kind of final, metaphysical center of personality. Self – as it has been shown in the 2nd chapter of CIS – is only a permanently changing, narratively centered network of beliefs and desires without any final, metaphysical center or essence. On the basis of this, Rorty thinks that one’s moral attitude can be considered also a case of luck in many situations. It is much easier to keep our moral attitude if we do not get into such situations where difficult moral decisions should or must be made among extreme circumstances. If we want to demonstrate moral luck in the simplest way, we should perhaps take an example from the field of bioethics. One of the best examples is organ transplantation. As long as you are not asked to donate one of your kidneys to your son, whose life is at stake (or at least you could free your son from the misery of dialysis), you can easily keep your moral attitude when 90 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer telling others about your hypothetically positive decision. What is more, you are absolutely lucky if such difficult moral situations can be avoided during your entire life. In this case, you could evaluate your own moral attitude very positively and never learn what the situation would be like if you personally experienced such an extremely difficult moral situation or you had to live through your moral failure. Rorty is persuaded that even Heidegger’s personality would have been different if his way of life had a morally luckier proceeding. Imagining for Heidegger another fictive, but possible way of life, Rorty shows, on the one hand, that there is no direct and necessary connection between one’s personality and one’s philosophy. On the other hand, he gives a special example of his contingency principle with this witty solution, because he shows that chances are not only much more important in our life than we believe, but we cannot eliminate them. If we take a longer quote from Rorty’s article, „On Heidegger’s Nazism” (1990), it will demonstrate exceptionally well the content of the first three points: In our actual world, Heidegger was a Nazi, a cowardly hypocrite, and the greatest European thinker of our time. In the possible world I have sketched, he was pretty much the same man, but he happened to have his nose rubbed in the torment of the Jews until he finally noticed what was going on, until his sense of pity and his sense of shame were finally awakened. In that world he had the good luck to have been unable to become a Nazi, and so to have had less occasion for cowardice or hypocrisy. In our actual world, he turned his face away, and eventually resorted to hysterical denial. This denial brought on his unforgivable silence. But that denial and that silence do not tell us much about the books he wrote, nor conversely. In both worlds, the only link between Heidegger’s politics and his books is the contempt for democracy he shared with, for example, Eliot, Chesterton, Tate, Waugh and Paul Claudel – people whom, as Auden predicted, we have long since pardoned for writing well. We could as easily have pardoned Heidegger his attitude towards democracy, if that had been all. But in the world without Sarah, the world in which Heidegger had the bad luck to live, it was not all. To sum up: I have been urging that we can find in the early Heidegger’s pragmatic antiessentialism reasons for abandoning the attempt to see the man and the books in a single vision, and perhaps even the attempt to see the books as stages on a single Denkweg. If we take that antiessentialism more seriously than Heidegger himself proved able to take it, we shall not be tempted to dratmatize Heidegger in the way in which he dramatized his favourite thinkers and poets. We shall not assign thinkers and poets places in a world-historical narrative. We shall see both them and their books as vector sums of contingent pressures. We shall see Heidegger as one more confused, torn, occasionally desperate, human being, someone much like ourselves. We shall read Heidegger’s books as he least wanted them read—as occasions for exploitation, recent additions to our Bestand an Waren. We shall stop yearning for depth, and stop trying either to worship heroes or to hunt down criminals. Instead, we shall settle for useful tools, and take them where we can find them. (PSH 196-197) References Bernstein, Richard J. and Christopher J. Voparil (eds.). 2010. The Rorty Reader. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell. Cited as TRR. Brandom, Robert B. 1983. “Heidegger’s Categories in Being and Time,” The Monist, 60. Brandom, Robert B. (ed.) 2004. Rorty and his Critics. Oxford: Blackwell. Cited as RC. Dewey, John. 2004. Reconstruction in Philosophy. Mineola, New York: Dover. Dewey, John. 1910. The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Farias, Victor. 1989. Heidegger and Nazism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1994. “Martin Heidegger’s One Path.” Reading Heidegger from the Start. Essays in His Earliest Thought, ed. John van Buren and Theodore Kisiel (Albany: State University of New York Press), 19-34. ----------. 1989. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroad. Grondin, Jean. 1991. “Ifjúhegeliánus és etikai motívumok a fakticitás heideggeri hermeneutikájában.” Utak és tévutak. Előadások Heideggerről, ed. Fehér M. István. (Budapest: Atlantisz), 219220. 91 M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer ----------. 1994. “Zur Entfaltung eines hermeneutischen Wahrheitsbegriffs.” Der Sinn für Hermeneutik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Heidegger, Martin. 1992. Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: Harper). ----------. 1962. Being and Time. New York: Harper and Row. Cited as BT. ----------. Beiträge zur Philosophie. (Vom Ereignis) (19361938). GA 65. ----------. Holzwege (1935-1946). GA 5. ----------. 1961. Nietzsche I-II. Pfullingen: Neske. ----------. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität (Sommersemester 1923). GA 63. ----------. Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles. Einführung in die phänomenologische Forschung (Wintersemester 1921/22). GA 61. ----------. 1989. “Phänomenologische Interpretationen zu Aristoteles. Anzeige der hermeneutischen Situation.” Dilthey-Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Geschichte der Geisteswissenschaften 6, 237-269. ----------. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row. ----------. 1992. “The Letter on Humanism.” Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: Harper). ----------. 1992. “What Calls for Thinking?” Basic Writings, ed. David Farrell Krell (San Francisco: Harper). Hugo, Ott. 1993. Martin Heidegger: a Political Life. Harper & Collins. Kisiel, Theodore. 1995. The Genesis of Heidegger’s Being and Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Kremer, Alexander. 2010. “Rorty on Religion and History.” Philobiblon Vol. XV, 326-350. ----------. 2010. “Dewey and Rorty on Truth.” Pragmatism Today, Vol. 1, ----------. 2009. “Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Richard Rorty’s Political Philosophy.” Pragmatist Perspectives. Acta Philosophica Fennica, ed. Sami Pihlström and Henrik Rydenfelt, Vol. 86, 69-81. ----------. 2009. “Rorty on Selfhood.” Self and Society, ed. Alexander Kremer and John Ryder, Vol. IV. Central European Pragmatist Forum, (Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi Press), 181189. ----------. 2009. “An Interview with Richard Rorty.” Self and Society, ed. Alexander Kremer and John Ryder, Vol. IV. Central European Pragmatist Forum, (Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi Press), 216-231. 92 ----------. 2009. “Rorty on Science and Politics.” Human Affairs. A Postdisciplinary Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences, Vol. 19, ----------. 2007. “Richard Rorty’s Interpretation of Nietzsche’s Philosophy.” Gedankensplitter zu Nietsche, (Szeged: Pro Philosophia Szegediensi Stiftung-Librarius Verlag-Status Verlag), 148167. ----------. 2007. “Dewey and Rorty.” AMERICANA, Vol. III, Number 2, Fall, ----------. 2007. “Rorty and Normativity.” Human Affairs. A Postdisciplinary Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences, Vol. 17, ----------. 2006. “Philosophy and Education: Richard Rorty’s Considerations.” Education for a Democratic Society, ed. Gert-Rüdiger Wegmarshaus and John Ryder (AmsterdamNew York: Rodopi Press), 21-29. ----------. 2003. “What is The Origin of Obligation?” Human Affairs. A Postdisciplinary Journal for Humanities & Social Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 1, June, 34-43. ----------. 1998. “Are All Interpretations Possible?” (20th World Congress of Philosophy, Section: Philosophy of Interpretation, Boston, MA, USA, 1998.) ----------. 1996. “Zur Heideggers Descartes-Kritik in Sein und Zeit.” Esz-Elet-Egzisztencia Vol. V, 255-265. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mendieta, Eduardo (ed.). 2006. Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself. Interviews with Richard Rorty. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Cited as TFT. Okrent, Mark. 1988. Heidegger’s Pragmatism. Itacha, N. Y.: Cornell University Press. Rorty, Richard. 1988. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth Century America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cited as AOC. ----------. 2002. Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies: A Conversation with Richard Rorty, ed Derek Nystrom, Kent Puckett. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Cited as AB. ----------. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cited as CP. ----------. 1989. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited as CIS. ----------. 2001. Critical Dialogues, ed. Matthew Festenstein and Simon Thompson. Polity Press. Cited as CD. M A R T I N H E I D E G G E R ’ S I N F L U E N C E O N R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y Alexander Kremer ----------. 1991. Essays on Heidegger and Others: Philosophical Papers II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited as EHO. ----------. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited as ORT. ----------. 2007. Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers IV. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Cited as PCP. ----------. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Oxford: Blackwell. Cited as PMN. ----------. 1999. Philosophy and Social Hope. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Cited as PSH. ----------. 1998. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited as TP. Rorty, Richard (ed.). 1967 and 1992. The Linguistic Turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cited as LT. Saatkamp, Herman (ed.). 1995. Rorty and Pragmatism. Nashville and London: Vanderbilt University Press. Safranski, Rüdiger. 1999. Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 2005. Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus. New York: Routledge 93 RICHARD RORTY’S SELLARSIAN UPTAKE took up Sellarsian insights, many of these were utilized Steven A. Miller in ways somewhat different than Sellars intended. (Southern Illinois University; mllrstvn@siu.edu) Inarguably, Rorty’s most influential writing is the 1979 Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. In this book, he engaged directly with Sellars’s most widely-read piece, the 1956 “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” As is Introduction well-known, this essay is “a general critique of the entire 2 Acknowledgments of the importance of other thinkers framework of givenness,” the upshots of which Rorty frequently pepper Richard Rorty’s writings in an applied and extended in ways somewhat at odds with offhanded, name-dropping sort of way. These mentions Sellars’s own conclusions. This paper’s first section will serve to bring to mind the general spirit if not the exact explore Rorty’s use of Sellars’s arguments against and letter of these others’ works, and Rorty used this to response to “The Myth of the Given.” emphasize resonances between his positions and those he brought up while simultaneously downplaying (or just The second section moves from the epistemological leaving out) their differences. Wilfrid Sellars is one sphere to the metaphysical. In particular, I intend to see philosopher who received this treatment; his name what application the overused term ‘naturalism’ has for appears throughout Rorty’s work, but most of these both writers. Necessarily related to this is the question mentions are cursory and lack reference to any of what role scientific inquiry plays for each of them. particular quotation or essay. The influence I argue for here is potentially more tenuous than that explored in either of the other two This is primarily an introduction to the influence of sections, largely because Rorty’s commitments are Wilfrid Sellars’s thought in the work of Richard Rorty. In difficult to nail down and his reading of Sellars’s position a short paper like this, it is necessary for important is, stated charitably, shaky. issues to be deemphasized and, in some cases, ignored. Despite this, because Rorty claimed that during his PhD Finally, I will take up an ethical theme, the role of what training at Yale “Sellars became my new philosophical Sellars called “we-intentions.” His writings on this topic hero, and for the next twenty years most of what I are especially complex and obscure, a worrying fact published was an attempt to capitalize on his when the notorious difficulty of the rest of his work is 1 achievements,” a key to understanding the origins and kept in mind. Sellars’s thoughts on this topic are almost development of Rorty’s thought is understanding at least entirely ignored, even among notable Sellarsians. One of something of Sellars’s. Exploring the relationship the few contemporary thinkers to identify his ethical between these two thinkers could easily sustain a book- positions as directly descended from Sellars’s is Rorty. length work, and each of the points of contact I take up Their positions differ, however, in important respects. here rightly deserves its own essay. Nonetheless, by From Rorty’s exploration and practicalization of Sellars’s briefly looking at three marginally interrelated themes, a arguments, important insights may be gained. preliminary picture of Rorty’s Sellarsian inheritance important is a shift which allows Sellars’s claims to touch emerges. This picture shows that while Rorty clearly ground, providing applicability for an Most otherwise systematic and interesting but altogether too rarified metaethical schema. 1 Richard Rorty, “Intellectual Autobiography,” in The Philosophy of Richard Rorty, Vol. 32 in The Library of Living Philosophers, Randall E. Auxier and Lewis Edwin Hahn, eds. (Chicago: Open Court Press, 2009), p. 8. 2 Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 14. R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller While much of the secondary literature on Rorty’s work which is made up of the mental events to which the only contains reference to his dependence on Sellars’s possible access is privileged and private. But with this epistemological and metaphysical insights, almost no distinction made suspect, with the separations between 3 one mentions the impact of his ethical work. Because ‘mind’ and ‘body’ and ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ brought into the already more-explored connections involve the best- question, how can the authority of these seemingly known portions of Sellars’s work, this paper’s longest disparate kinds of reports be unified? section is the third: by working through the role of Sellarsian ethics in a Rortian context, two underappreciated birds will be hit with but one stone. Sellars located the answer to this in a critique of givenness, his rejection of the position that there can be knowledge Rejecting “The Myth of the Given” – and Then Some about pre-conceptual perceptual experiences, the results of which apply—mutatis mutandis—to Rorty's worries about the privilege of So many elements of Richard Rorty’s later works can be mental discourse. Sellars went on to explain, “the point traced back to insights and arguments found in of the epistemological category of the given is, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. The rejection of presumably, to explicate the idea that empirical foundationalist epistemology undertaken there had knowledge rests on a 'foundation' of non-inferential wide-ranging impact, opening for Rorty particular knowledge of matters of fact,” a summary that suggests research paths while precluding him from others. his critique applies to foundationalist epistemology Central to the arguments in that piece is what Rorty generally. 6 called Sellars’s “attack on logical empiricism … that … raise[s] questions about the epistemic privilege which Sellars presented the difficulty of ‘givenness’ accounts as logical empiricism claims for certain assertions, qua an inconsistent triad: reports of privileged representations.” 4 Rorty relied A. X senses red sense content s entails x noninferentially knows that s is red. B. The ability to sense sense contents is unacquired. C. The ability to know facts of the form x is ɸ is acquired. heavily on Sellars’s attempt to bring a behaviorist critique to the privileged access of ‘mental states’ empiricism has long held: Sellars asks how the authority of first-person reports of, for example, how things appear to us, the pains from which we suffer, and the thoughts that drift before our minds differs from the authority of expert reports on, for example, metal stress, the mating behavior of birds, or the 5 colors of physical objects. A and B together entail not-C; B and C entail not7 A; A and C entail not-B. Each of these three propositions is in some way fundamental to traditional empirical accounts of knowledge, and each seems remarkably intuitive. The Traditionally, following Descartes and others who first suggests that when one looks upon an object and endorse substance dualisms, a strong distinction has sees that it is red, he or she knows it is red. The second been held between the latter category of items, which speaks to humans having bodies that allow them to includes the physical stuff of the world, and the former, interact at a basic level with their environments without 3 An important exception to this is Christopher J. Voparil’s Richard Rorty: Politics and Vision (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2006), which contains three explicit references to Sellars’s writings as the launching pad for important parts of Rorty’s ethics. 4 Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), p. 173. 5 Ibid. training. The third, which is where Sellars’s nominalism is on full display, indicates that the particular objects to which and ways in which humans have come to assign 6 Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 19. 7 Ibid., p. 21. 95 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller the labels of ‘subject’ and ‘predicate’, and even that concepts. ... [T]o be able to apply one concept humans divide the world in this way at all, is contingent. noninferentially, one must be able to use others inferentially.” 10 Consequently, something like this inconsistent triad also has had significant impact on traditional understandings Sellars noted that a consequence of rejecting the first of language acquisition: historically, it was thought that proposition in the trilemma and accepting the other two children acquired language by their parents repetitiously is that pointing out given objects and conjointly using all awareness of sorts, resemblances, facts, etc., in short all awareness of abstract entities— indeed, all awareness even of particulars—is a linguistic affair. Accordingly, not even the awareness of such sorts, resemblances, and facts as pertain to so-called immediate experience is presupposed by the process of acquiring the use 11 of language. identifying terms. Sellars, following Ludwig Wittgenstein, referred to this account of language-learning as ‘Augustinian’, though this is in large part caricature. 8 Regardless, Sellars noticed that for this picture of language acquisition to make sense, children would have to have non-inferential access to the way in which the world’s myriad objects are divided one from another prior to learning their names. Said more directly, on this view, children are required to have concepts before they have learned how the world is to be conceptualized, This claim, that all awareness is linguistic, provided the launching point for Rorty’s later claims that human knowledge and experience of reality is linguistic. At first blush, this seems a reasonable extension of Sellars’ claim, for Rorty could argue that for the stuff of which seems to involve a linguistic miracle. experience to be experienced, one must be aware of the Sellars argued at length that “instead of coming to have a concept of something because we have noticed that sort of thing, to have the ability to notice a sort of thing is already to have the concept of that sort of thing and 9 cannot account for it.” As he wished to save the second two propositions of the inconsistent triad and still make sense of language-acquisition, Sellars jettisoned the first proposition, suggesting that there is an inference necessary to move from sensation to knowledge. The experiencing. Likewise for knowledge: for generalizations, categories, and facts as such to come to be requires that one first be aware of their referents during the process of generalization, categorization, factfinding, and so on. By subsuming all awareness under the heading of linguistic behavior, Sellars's position extended the reaches of language throughout much of human life and inquiry, though not as far as Rorty's ultimately did. majority of “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind” is an extended argument that such inferences should be understood as causal necessities, rather than This tension between Sellars himself and Rorty’s use of Sellars arises because, as Teed Rockwell argues in his 12 foundations, for knowledge. Robert Brandom has summarized the upshot of this, especially in reference to “The Hard Problem is Dead…,” Rorty was not attentive to later Sellarsian texts in constructing his arguments in language and concept-acquisition, by saying that “in order to master any concepts, one must master many concepts. For grasp of one concept consists in mastery of at least some of its inferential relations to other 8 See, for instance, Christopher Kirwan’s “Augustine’s philosophy of language,” in Cambridge Companion to Augustine (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 186. 9 Wilfrid Sellars, op. cit., p. 87. 96 10 Robert Brandom, Articulating Reasons (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 49. 11 Wilfrid Sellars, op. cit., p. 63. 12 Teed Rockwell, “The Hard Problem is Dead; Long live the hard problem,” unpublished manuscript, available online, http://www.cognitivequestions.org/hardproblem.html. In this piece Rockwell comments extensively on Rorty’s use and misuse of the Sellarsian reply to “The Myth of the Given,” ultimately showing that John Dewey and Sellars are more in line than Rorty and either of the two. R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, texts that show a Disputing the Priority of Science striking ambivalence toward awareness’s linguistic character. While the Sellars of “Empiricism and the A recent account of “Sellars’s substantive philosophical Philosophy of Mind” was clear that awareness is commitments” begins “Sellars’s deepest philosophical linguistic, he later insisted that commitment is to naturalism.” 16 It goes on to express the difficulties of this term, including Sellars’s own [n]ot all 'organized behavior' is built on linguistic structures. The most that can be claimed is that what might be called 'conceptual thinking' is essentially tied to language, and that, for obvious reasons, the central or core concept of what 13 thinking is pertains to conceptual thinking. statement that “Naturalism … was as wishy-washy and ambiguous as Pragmatism. One could believe almost anything about the world and even some things about God, and yet be a Naturalist.” Despite his frustration, Sellars ultimately stated his allegiance to this position: “I This is a significantly weaker claim than that defended by prefer the term ‘Naturalism,’ which … has acquired a Rorty, as when he stated, “either grant concepts to substantive content, which, if it does not entail scientific anything (e.g. record-changers) which can respond realism, is at least not incompatible with it.” 17 This last discriminatively to classes of objects, or else explain why criterion was of moment for Sellars because of his you draw the line between conceptual thought and its explicit commitment to scientific realism: “In the primitive predecessors in a different place from that dimension of describing and explaining, science is the between having acquired a language and being still in training.” measure of all things: of those that are, that they are, 14 and of those that are not, that they are not.” 18 While this scientia mensura is regrettable to later Sellarsians But even if we admit that Sellars and Rorty were at odds more interested in his account of the irreducibility of on the depth of their linguistic idealism, there is a key social normativity, 19 it is a feature that remains upshot of Sellars’s rejection that Rorty used to lasting consistent throughout his work. In another article, for effect. In undermining traditional accounts of givenness, instance, Sellars spoke directly of the “primacy of the “the essential point is that in characterizing an episode or a state as that of knowing, we are not giving an scientific image,” claiming that people’s commonsense way of talking about middle-sized objects is at base empirical description of that episode or state, we are false. 20 Sellars’s scientific realism is not therefore an placing it in the logical space of reasons, of justifying and being able to justify what one says.” 15 easily ignored misstep but rather an oft-repeated and It is here that the central component of his philosophy, tied up with many irreducibly normative and social character of justification becomes apparent, a point which has received significant development in the hands of Rorty’s student Brandom. A portion of Rorty’s application of the communal nature of justification will be unpacked in this paper’s third section. 13 Wilfrid Sellars, “The Structure of Knowledge.” In Action, Knowledge, and Perception, ed. Hector-Nari Castañeda (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975), p. 305. 14 Rorty, op. cit., p. 186. 15 Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 76. 16 Willem A. deVries, Wilfrid Sellars (Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2005), p. 15. 17 Wilfrid Sellars, Naturalism and Ontology, the John Dewey Lectures for 1973-74 (Reseda, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company, 1980), p. 1-2. 18 Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Robert Brandom, ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 83. 19 It is precisely this point that motivated Rorty to divide Sellarsians into right- and left-wing camps. The former see scientific realism as the key Sellarsian commitment, while the latter see it, in Robert Brandom’s phrasing, as an instance of backsliding, “a pre-Sellarsian remnant,” that is at odds with other Sellarsian positions. 20 Wilfrid Sellars, “Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man,” in In the Space of Reasons, Robert Brandom and Kevin Scharp, eds. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), pp. 369-408. 97 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller 27 of his positions, including (importantly) his philosophy of it?’ Criticisms ... should charge relative inutility.” perception. science is very useful indeed, something Rorty admitted And when he went on to say that he “retain[ed] the One who comes to Sellars’s thought by way of Rorty may conviction that Darwinism provides a useful vocabulary consider the preceding paragraph bizarre. Introducing in which to formulate [his] pragmatist position.” the first book-length republication of “Empiricism and similar sentiment underwrote his ostensible acceptance the Philosophy of Mind,” Rorty wrote of Sellars’s of the title 'naturalist', which he defined as being “the “justified suspicion of the science-worship which kind of antiessentialist who, like Dewey, sees no breaks afflicted the early stages of analytic philosophy.” 21 28 A In in the hierarchy of increasingly complex adjustments to support of this, Rorty approvingly noted Sellars’s novel stimulation—the hierarchy which has amoeba statement its adjusting themselves to changed water temperature at sophisticated extension, science, is rational, not because the bottom, bees dancing and chess players check- it has a foundation but because it is a self-correcting mating in the middle, and people fomenting scientific, enterprise which can put any claim in jeopardy, though artistic, and political revolutions at the top.” that 22 not all at once.” “empirical knowledge, like 29 James O’Shea has argued convincingly that Rorty here downplayed the differences between his It is clear that the results and method of science do not positions and Sellars’s and in so doing weakened the take center stage in Rorty’s work and in this way may be utility of his introduction by misrepresenting Sellars’s said to “recede into the background,” but this seems ideas. 23 largely because his project had aims other than those to which science was immediately relevant. It is also clear A favorite point of criticism against Rorty, especially that Rorty rejected scientific realism, largely for reasons from followers of earlier pragmatists, is the way in which related to his disdain for talk of a ‘way the world is’, a “Rorty holds that science is now quietly receding into the vocabulary with which Sellars was comfortable. Despite 24 Compared with Sellars’s scientific this, Rorty was surely a naturalist who thought there was realism, this statement is true, but Rorty does not think an important, though not ultimate, role for science. that “technoscience becomes only one ‘vocabulary’ When asked in an interview about lingering scientism in background.” 25 for this some of his work, Rorty initially demurred, explaining would suggest he was a relativist of exactly the sort he that “there are lots of different justifiable assertions, among others with no particular privilege,” consistently asserted himself not to be. 26 Instead, Rorty suggested, “the question should always be ‘What use is including not only scientific assertions but aesthetic and social judgments.” On further pressure, he invoked Sellars, stating, “I think of myself as stealing the point … 21 Richard Rorty, “Introduction,” in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Robert Brandom, ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 10. 22 Wilfrid Sellars, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Robert Brandom, ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 79. 23 James O’Shea, “Revisiting Sellars on the Myth of the Given,” International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4 (2002): pp. 490-503. 24 Larry A. Hickman, Philosophical Tools for Technological Culture: Putting Pragmatism to Work (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2001), p. 88. 25 Ibid., p. 96. 26 See, for instance, "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism," in Consequences of Pragmatism (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), esp. pp. 166-68. 98 that one’s categories in metaphysics should be the categories of the sciences of one’s day. But that’s simply to say what a boring subject metaphysics is.” 27 30 Richard Rorty, “Putnam and the Relativist Menace,” in The Rorty Reader, Christopher J. Voparil and Richard J. Bernstein, eds. (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), p. 182. 28 Ibid., p. 184. 29 Richard Rorty, “Inquiry as Recontextualization: An Anti-dualist Account of Interpretation,” in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers Volume 1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 109. 30 Richard Rorty, “From Philosophy to Postphilosophy,” interview by Wayne Hudson and Wim van Reijen, in Take R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller An Application of Sellarsian “We-Intentions” prepared to adopt the formula believed as a guide to 35 action.” In his 2005 book on Sellars, Willem deVries wrote, “Almost thirty years ago, W. David Solomon lamented The reason for this seems plain enough: in normative the neglect of Sellars’s ethical writings. The situation has discourse, an individual who accepts one judgment 31 It is clear that Rorty was frequently commits him or herself to another, which exposed to these writings or at least some of the ideas may entail some action taking place. An example of this they contained, and he describes key components of his may be seen in an individual simultaneously believing “I ethical thinking as “borrowed from Wilfred [sic] want my children to go to college” and “For my children not changed in the interim.” 32 The differences between their positions, to go to college, I will have to pay for their tuition.” By however, are marked: like many other contemporary having both of these beliefs simultaneously, the metaethical accounts, Sellars’s is one in which form is individual is required to do what he or she can to engage stressed rather than content, but Rorty consistently in an action, namely tuition-paying. But there is more to eschewed formal characterizations. Part of the aim of this chain of reasoning than just these two statements; this section is to show how Rorty’s ethical positions may there are enthymematic linking terms that play into this be called broadly Sellarsian despite his sloughing off so sort of decision-making. Beginning with but one or two much of what Sellars took to be central. practical judgments can frequently set off a long series Sellars.” of further judgments, all of which eventually lead to In his ethical writings, Sellars’s focus “[wa]s to identify consequent action. moral judgments as one form of practical judgment and to explore the relationship between them and other practical judgments.” 33 Many traditional accounts of practical philosophy in He considered morality to be “a general and ethics in particular have been content to field of inquiry in which good reasons can be offered for claim that judgments of this kind are best rendered in 34 This the imperative mood; for instance, the prescriptive focus on the process of developing new judgments is character of normativity has frequently been cashed out necessary, Sellars argued, because rarely does normative as ‘thou shalt’ this or that. Sellars was convinced that reasoning move from a single belief to an obvious action; any account of imperative inference cannot fully express rather, it is only through a progression of related beliefs the entailment-relationship of these judgments, so he that one determines a proper course for action. On his required answers to questions belonging to that field.” that they 36 instead be treated as account, ethical statements and beliefs are not inert: nonimperatives. real belief cashes out in real consequences or, as Peirce such judgments as intentions, which are always in the His way of doing this was to recast 37 claimed, “belief consists mainly in being deliberately 35 Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself, Eduardo Mendieta, ed. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006), p. 27. 31 Willem deVries, Wilfrid Sellars (Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2005), p. 246. 32 Richard Rorty, “Postphilosophical Politics,” in Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), p. 33. 33 W. David Solomon, “Ethical Theory,” in Synoptic Vision: Essays on the Philosophy of Wilfrid Sellars (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977), p. 155. 34 Wilfrid Sellars, “Science and Ethics,” in Philosophical Perspectives: Metaphysics and Epistemology (Reseda, CA: Ridgeview Publishing Company, 1967), p. 194. Charles S. Peirce, “The Meaning of ‘Practical’ Consequences,” Collected Papers 5.27. 36 It is in this way the Sellarsian system avoids emotivism. Quite a lot more could be said about where Sellars’s work fits into the history of analytic metaethics; for the moment, it is enough to note he was attempting to put flesh on the bare bones of Prichard’s insights (cf. Solomon, p. 155) while pushing back fervently against Ayerian emotivism. 37 Sellars’s treatment of intentions is where his formalism becomes most apparent. James O’Shea explains, “As a tidy formal device, Sellars in his various discussions of human agency formulates … actiongenerating volitions in terms of a ‘Shall’ operator on first-person propositional thinkings: for example, ‘Shall (I 99 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller If all normative judgments are United States should be at war,” said by Speaker A understood with this modality, they can be used as seems to be contradicted by either “It is not the case elements of indicative inference, which preserves the that Speaker A believes the United States should be at explanatory efficacy of a practical-reasoning account of war” or an additional utterance by Speaker A, “I believe moral decision-making. For Sellars, indicative-volitional the United States should not be at war.” But neither of statements functioned simultaneously as intentions, these proposed contradictions is acceptable: the first is a reasons, and causal antecedents of action, which are negation of ascription instead of a negation of intention, precisely the results needed when one makes a moral while the second is an entirely different positive judgment. intention. As I emphasized in prior sections, Sellars recognized the Even if these forms were to contradict, it is notable that irreducibility of the social in both his dismissal of no statement at all made by speaker B could in principle givenness and his synoptic philosophical vision. contradict indicative mood. This 38 those of speaker A. The intentions, attentiveness to cultural imbeddedness continued in his dispositions, and judgments of B may certainly disagree ethical writings. With it established that moral with those of A, but if Sellars’s normative-intentional judgments can only be understood as intentions, Sellars scheme is correct, they may never individually be examined how this plays out in communities, especially brought into contradiction. when norms disagree. In these cases, we feel a sense of contradiction: For instance, one speaker might think the In order to account for normative contradiction, Sellars United States should be at war while another thinks reconstructed intentionality, asserting that there is more quite the opposite. Each of these two likely believes in to moral discourse than only an individual interlocutor’s the exclusivity of his or her judgment; from speaker A’s intentions. Maintaining the universality he desired while position, speaker B is wrong, and the same is surely the simultaneously keeping ethical beliefs as action- case for speaker A’s position in the opinion of speaker B. motivating thoughts required that he posit “We- If either of these positions were understood as nothing Expressions of Intention.” more than individual ethical expressions, there could statements that “express the intention of a group but never be normative contradictions, for “I believe the are asserted (or expressed) by members of a group.” 39 These are intentional 40 Thus, when speakers A and B genuinely disagree about will now do A)’,” Wilfrid Sellars: Naturalism with a Normative Turn (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2007), p. 179. Sellars later devised use of a subscript after the ‘Shall’ to denote the intender, such that “ShallBrown (Jones will go to the store)” is read “Brown intends that Jones will go to the store.” While Sellars’s ‘Shall’ operator is handy and worth discussion, giving a full account of its proper use would lead us too far afield, for Rorty disregards it entirely. Readers seeking more on this topic should see the relevant chapters of deVries’s and O’Shea’s books as well as Wilfrid Sellars, Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1968), p. 180 and following; Bruce Aune, “Sellars on Practical Reason,” in Action, Knowledge and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars, Hector-Neri Castañeda, ed. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975); Hector-Neri Castañeda, “Some Reflections on Wilfrid Sellars’ Theory of Intentions,” in Agent, Language, and the Structure of the World: Essays Presented to Hector-Neri Castañeda, with His Replies, J. E. Tomberlin, ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983). 100 whether the United States should be at war, they are not each merely expressing their own respective I-intention but rather making a claim about the desirability of the aims of one of the groups to which they both belong. So while speaker A and B might each individually assert, “I 38 A third potential formulation, “It is not the case that I believe the United States should be at war,” uttered by the same speaker A, does contradict “I believe the United States should be at war,” but it cannot be cashed out as an intention in the same way any of the other pseudo-contradictions may for reasons related to wellformed and proper deployment of the (here intentionally neglected) shall-operator. 39 Wilfrid Sellars, Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1968), p. 215. 40 W. David Solomon, op. cit., p. 175. R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller intend that the United States will (or will not) be at war,” being insofar as they are making a normative claim, there is a philosophical propriety: ‘we pragmatists’, ‘we anti- deeper form underlying their utterances. representationists’, or ‘we historicists’, for example.” This hounded by self-appointed guardians of 44 underlying position is expressed in the form “We intend While this way of expressing his inclusion in these the United States will (and will not) be at war,” though disparaged philosophical movements may seem at first neither of the disagreeing speakers explicitly says this. impression over the top or insincere, it also may reveal This formal referent—the objects of which are the degree to Rorty was influenced by Sellars’s group- interrelated, intersubjective, and shared—preserves the centered ethical framework and inasmuch evinces possibility deliberative sincerity. Beyond this, Rorty freely admitted that he contradiction. We-intentions thus solve a problem that “was trying to describe social progress in a way remained apparent in any individualistically intentional borrowed from Wilfred [sic] Sellars: the expansion of account of practical judgment. ‘we’ consciousness, that is, the ability to take more and of genuine and direct more people of the sort fashionably called ‘marginal’ and Sellars was clear that we-intentions are not just think of them as one of us, included in us.” 45 conjunctions of individual intentions. While two individuals might each share a certain judgment and Rorty’s use of the term “borrow” is at once appropriate intention, their individual assertions taken together do and somewhat misleading: while it is clear his ethical not account for the features of we-intentions Sellars writings were influenced by Sellars, there are major needed to make morality truly robust. Likewise, we- differences between their presented understandings of intentions cannot be an individual intention attached to “we-intentional” ethics. a belief that others in one’s community hold a similar systematic account that gets him from experience to position. This fails on two accounts: Sellars was clear ethics, Rorty seems to slough off much of this formal that I-intending and we-intending are different forms of work, making use of Sellars’s conclusions without any intention, 41 and more significantly, “we-intending While Sellars has a robust, particular regard for how they were developed. involves a special ‘form of consciousness’ … [or] ‘form of life’.” 42 Despite the centrality of Sellars’s positions in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, it was not until ten years later, This latter criterion is undeniably provocative, especially in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, that Rorty began to insofar as it directly sheds light on how Sellars took engage directly with Sellars’s metaethical findings. The communities to be something more than simply the sum interstitial articles “Method, Social Science, Social Hope,” of their constitutive members. Intending in this new “Solidarity or Objectivity,” and “Science as Solidarity” all mode or form of life, intending within a group is the very made passing references to the communal upshot of the form of moral discourse. 43 Due to his use of we- Sellarsian view, but all were substantially within the intentions, the particular moral judgments of an bounds of epistemology and concerned with ‘we’ as individual are inherently linked in virtue of explanation members of a shared conceptual schema or language to those of the individual’s particular group-affiliations. game rather than anything more obviously ethical. 46 In an October, 1998, article in the London Review of Books, Jonathan Rée chided Richard Rorty for “using a histrionic ‘we’ to align himself with some group that was 41 Wilfrid Sellars, “Imperatives, Intentions, and the Logic of ‘Ought’,” in Methodos, Vol. 8 (1956): p. 203. 42 W. David Solomon, op. cit., p. 176. 43 Wilfrid Sellars, op. cit., p. 204. 44 Jonathan Rée, “Strenuous Unbelief,” in The London Review of Books, Vol. 20, No. 20 (Oct. 15, 1998): p. 7. 45 Richard Rorty, “Postphilosophical Politics,” in Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006), p. 33. 46 This is not to say, of course, that one can have epistemology without ethics or ethics without epistemology but only that the three noted articles 101 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Rorty argued that if Even without a specific referent of his use of the term Sellars was right that all experience is conceptually ‘we’, a formal point may be made: ‘we’ are those mediated and all concepts are linguistic, and if Rorty was “individuals who find themselves heir to the same right that all language is contingent, then there is no way historical traditions 51 and faced with the same for philosophy—or any other human enterprise—to put problems.” together the one true account of how things really are. made reference to a number of different ‘we’s, but the Without this possibility, 47 At different points in his writings, Rorty Rorty advocated giving up on one that consistently trumps all the rest is that of the metaphysical and epistemological enterprises within political liberal: “the audience I am addressing when I philosophy and instead finding ways to increase use the term ‘we’ … is made up of people whom I think solidarity, which he took to be “the imaginative ability to of as social democrats.” see strange people as fellow sufferers.” 48 52 He then offered a laundry-list Rorty of positions to which the majority of these people might summarized his take on ethical discourse by stating the agree, but they distill down to one key belief that is both relevant application of his epistemic arguments: descriptive and normative in scope: “cruelty is the worst thing we do.” [this is] a way of looking at morality as a set of practices, our practices, [which] makes vivid the difference between the conception of morality as the voice of a divinized portion of our soul, and as the voice of a contingent human artifact, a community which has grown up subject to the 49 vicissitudes of time and chance. 53 This definitional principle is borrowed from Judith Shklar, who “highlights the psychological origins and burdens that accompany a commitment to liberal politics.” 54 In one of his last books, Rorty explicitly identified his From this, Rorty argued that since all moral claims are political ideal: “the hope [is] that someday, any ours, attempts at justification must be limited to millennium now, my remote descendents will live in a ourselves; gone is any hope for universal justification. global civilization in which love is pretty much the only Here is where the influence of Sellars’s metaethical law.” system may be seen most strongly, for Rorty proposed one in which cruelty is anathema, then it is clear how that “what counts as rational or fanatical [and, one this ideal vision is an intimately linked extension of his might add, justified or unjustified] is relative to the earlier comments on the liberal’s disdain for cruelty. But group to which we think it is necessary to justify how did he imagine we might move from here to there? ourselves—to the body of shared belief which Two years prior to his death, he admitted ignorance: “I 50 have no idea how such a society could come about. It is, determines the reference of the word ‘we’.” 55 If we understand a society based on love to be one might say, a mystery.” 56 But nearly twenty years earlier, in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Rorty took himself to be offering a firmer plan of action for bringing engage their questions from the perspective of knowledge-acquisition. 47 No doubt this will be a point of tremendous contention, and it is fair to object to Rorty’s construction of such a strongly exclusive disjunction: either we can get the one true account of things, or we should stop doing epistemology and metaphysics. Here I do not offer a defense or criticism of Rorty on this point, though either could be presented. 48 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge University Press,1989), p. xvi. 49 Ibid., p. 60. 50 Richard Rorty, “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy” in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophy Papers Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 177. 102 51 Ibid., p. 184. Richard Rorty, “Thugs and Theorists: A Reply to Bernstein,” in Political Theory, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Nov. 1987): p. 564. 53 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. xv. 54 Bernard Yack, ed., Liberalism without Illusions: Essays on Liberal Theory and the Political Vision of Judith N. Shklar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. ix. 55 Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo, The Future of Religion, Santiago Zabala, ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), p. 40. 56 Ibid. 52 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller about this ideal, and this plan was absolutely Sellarsian considerable is not founded on philanthropic action at a in content. distance but instead by considering others to be “one of us,” or within our present ‘we’. In the final analysis, the Without the possibility of transhistorical justification, ‘we’ of “we liberals” is in fact—ideally, ultimately, and Rorty recognized that no satisfaction can be found for a hopefully—subsumed and replaced by something more desire to condemn universally and fundamentally. The like “we sufferers.” bugaboos of first year introduction to ethics courses, horrors such as the Holocaust and clitoridectomy, strike This speaks to what Christopher Voparil notices as a us as so repugnant that it is not enough to say they are developmental tension in Rorty’s work: wrong; rather, one must say they are absolutely wrong, Rorty initially claimed that our sense of solidarity with others is strongest when we identify with them as a part of some particular--that is, less than universal--community, as ‘one of us,’ whether it be as Americans, as liberals, or the like. More recently, however, he seems to have abandoned this view, suggesting that we replace the ideas of justice and universal moral obligation with the idea of ... “loyalty to a very 60 large group--the human species.” wrong in all instances. On Rorty’s account, this can still be said, but only by reference to community standards and the historical institutions that fund them, because there is nothing other than artifacts of this type. “I have been urging,” Rorty indicated, “that we try not to want something institutions.” which 57 stands beyond history and The question for a reader of Rorty must be whether one will join him in giving up the idea of “something that stands behind history.” 58 I take it that the ideal of Rorty’s solidaristic account in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity already had the seeds of loyalty to (or solidarity with) something like the Instead of this kind of justificatory notion, Rorty offered human species, as the potential to suffer is common to human solidarity, the capacity of people to think of both the present and limited ‘we’ but also to whatever others as “one of us.” This does not require an analysis more-universal one moral action attempts to develop. of what it means to be ‘us’ or how one shall understand While sympathy at a distance may be difficult and thus the other; “rather, it is … the ability to see more and our sense of solidarity easier in local communities, more traditional differences (of tribe, religion, race, stopping there would be to abandon the Rortian pursuit customs, and the like) as unimportant when compared of “think[ing] of people wildly different from ourselves with similarities with respect to pain and humiliation. [It as included in the range of ‘us’.” In this way, Rorty went is] the ability to think of people wildly different from one better than Sellars, who wrote that “the 59 The liberal commitment to the well-being of others is a ‘we’, which takes cruelty and humiliation to be its commitment deeper than any commitment to abstract greatest enemies, gradually finds itself less and less principle.” concerned with the dissimilarities that have traditionally stance requires that other people matter to us more ourselves as included in the range of ‘us’.” 61 For while Sellars is right that the moral gotten in the way of greater fellow-feeling. If the liberal 60 is sincerely concerned with eradication of cruelty, then engagement with any other feature of human life— whether communal or individual—must be thought of as subordinate to recognizing and stopping the humiliation of others. For Rorty, the effort to make others morally 57 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 189. 58 Ibid., p. 190. 59 Ibid. Christopher J. Voparil, op. cit., p. 86n.40. In the omitted portion of the quotation, Voparil suggests Rorty may have taken up the term ‘loyalty’ from Royce. Interestingly, Sellars claims that “the only frame of mind which can provide direct support for moral commitment is what Royce called Loyalty, and what Christians call Love of Neighbor.” See “Imperatives, Intentions, and the Logic of ‘Ought’,” in Methodos, Vol. 8 (1956). 61 Wilfrid Sellars, “‘Ought’ and Moral Principles,” unpublished manuscript dated “Pittsburgh, February 14, 1966,” available online http://www.ditext.com/sellars/omp.html. 103 R I C H A R D R O R T Y ’ S S E L L A R S I A N U P T A K E Steven A. Miller than do vague principles, he identifies attention to other us’, ever aiming to enlarge the sphere of moral people with a “love of neighbor.” Rorty pressed further consideration, looking only to a baseline sense that than this, encouraging us to press at the traditional other people can hurt and be hurt just as we can. boundaries of our neighborhood, of the ‘we’ or ‘one of 104 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: turning point in Rorty's philosophy when he gave up his RORTY AND DAVIDSON ON THE MIND-WORLD RELATION1 eliminative materialism in favour of a still naturalistic Istvan Danka pragmatism. I shall argue that at least one of the reasons (University of Leeds, danka.istvan@gmail.com) for doing so was his recognition that Davidson's transformation of the mind-world dualism into a 'mental description'-'physical description' dualism is a suitable tool for his purpose of blurring the division between the arts/humanities and hard sciences, while holding Abstract naturalist principles at the same time. In this paper I shall deal with some impact of Donald Davidson's work on Rorty's philosophy. I shall take a Introduction rejection of the distinction between natural sciences and humanities to be one of Rorty's central theses – a view In the 1980s, Rorty celebrated Davidson's work as the for which he paid as high price as abandoning the culmination of "holist and pragmatist strains in investigations of central philosophical notions like truth contemporary analytic philosophy (Rorty 1987, p. 116) or representation. This movement made him possible to and that of "a line of thought in American philosophy exceed the analytic-Continental divide and hence which aims at being naturalistic without being opening up the possibilities of his analytic-originated reductionist" (Rorty 1987, p. 113). In the long run, philosophy to topics uncovered in the Anglo-Saxon Davidson's importance goes even beyond philosophy tradition. If my arguments are correct, Davidson did not departments insofar as his "non-reductive physicalism only serve him as an example of philosophers who can gives us [...] all the respect for science we need, be taken "as grist to be put through the same dialectical combined with more respect for poetry than the mill" (Rorty 1989, p. 74) but Davidson's philosophy – Western philosophical tradition has usually allowed especially what Rorty calls "non-reductive physicalism" – itself" (Rorty 1987, p. 125). Rorty reminds us that since is the millstone of Rorty's dialectics. Plato, poetry and art have been managed as opposites to philosophical and scientific research; more recently this After a short introduction, I shall characterise a opposition has been transformed to the clash between difference between "the" truth and "truths" or facts. natural sciences and humanities departments. Rorty Rorty rejects not only truth but facts as well, on the extensively argues in several of his works that if we ground that they depend on language and hence cannot abandoned central notions of Modernity like truth and fulfil the role attributed to them. From this it seems to representation, the distinction between the two sorts of follow that he holds a sort of linguistic idealism which intellectual activities would disappear. Sciences (and directly contradicts his materialist, physicalist and scientific philosophy) are traditionally thought to be naturalist commitments. I shall argue therefore that his aiming at the true representation of reality; from this, it reason for rejecting the notion of fact is not idealism but may follow that non-scientific enterprise of the arts, on the contrary: a sort of physicalism compatible with literary criticism, or so-called Continental philosophy Davidson's account. After introducing some slight but either would be unable to present similarly true important materialism, representations or, even worse, they do not even have physicalism, and naturalism, I shall demonstrate a such aims. Rorty fights against this unjust treatment – distinctions between not independently of his recognition that non-analytic I am grateful to György Pápay for our many conversations on these topics over years which essentially formed the present line of thoughts. 1 pragmatists and certain Continental philosophers 105 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka provide us more useful tools for developing a better Truth and Truths future of humankind than scientific philosophy. Rorty is often labelled as a linguistic idealist (for counterRorty's relation to Davidson is most often discussed arguments see Brandom 2000b and Williams 2009). (both by themselves and their interpretors) via a Some distinctions are in order, however, regarding what presentation of their debate on the nature of truth linguistic (Rorty 1986, Davidson 1986, Bilgrami 2000, Davidson understood as a dominant form of antirealism. Insofar as 2000, Rorty 2000a, Rorty2000c, Sandbothe 2003 – just realism can be held about several things (e.g. realism to mention a few of the more interesting references). In about truth, realism about facts, realism about meaning, the 1980s, Rorty thought Davidson's views about truth realism about mathematical objects, etc.), idealism, and to be pragmatist. This interpretation was not fully its linguistic form, can also be about different fields. accepted by Davidson. Though the latter gradually gave Rorty's alleged idealism can be understood in at least up the idea that his coherence theory of truth could two important senses. On the one hand, he is certainly finally result in correspondence, he urged to keep a an antirealist regarding truth as he directly denies its primitive notion of truth because it is one of those existence. On the other hand, in some sense he is also an notions which "are essential to thought, and cannot be antirealist regarding facts or truths. idealism is about. Idealism is mostly reduced to anything simpler or more fundamental" (Davidson 2000, p. 73). As opposed to that, Rorty Rorty use terms of truths and facts interchangeably, thought truth is an abused philosophical concept better supposedly in an opposition with the general notion of to forget in order to open up new possibilities for "the" truth. He thinks that "'truths' and 'facts' are pretty philosophical is nearly equivalent notions" (Rorty 2000b, p. 184). Just as significant regarding Rorty's views about truth, it is he claims that truth is a property of sentences (Rorty significant only in the sense how Rorty gradually turns 1989, p. 21), he also thinks that truths/facts are to be from a Davidsonian understanding of truth and understood as descriptions knowledge to non-Davidsonian perspectives. vocabularies. As Brandom read him, enterprise. If Davidson's impact However, there are some clearly Davidsonian sources of these "non-Davidsonian" perspectives. Except truth, Rorty and Davidson agree in several philosophical questions about language, mind, and reality. The main reason can be that for a Davidsonian, it is not truth but causality that warrants a connection between our beliefs and worldly facts. I shall argue below that this difference between Davidsonians and non-Davidsonians is central to Rorty's view about Davidson as well as his own relation to naturalism. Presumably, even his views about vocabularies at least partially depend on Davidson's theory of descriptions. belonging to certain "to talk of facts is to talk of something that is conceptually structured, propositionally contentful, something, that is, with the right shape to stand in inferential and hence justificatory relations. [...] Rorty can explain our talk of facts: to treat a sentence as expressing a fact is just to treat it as true, and to treat a sentence as true is just to endorse it, to make the claim one would make by asserting the sentence. But he rejects the idea of facts as a kind of thing that makes claims true" (Brandom 2000b, p. 161). This notion of "fact" clearly differs from how philosophers use the word. Facts are precisely claimed to be non-linguistic. But for Rorty, a non-linguistic entity cannot stand in a truth-making, normative relation with a linguistic entity. If a fact makes a statement to be true, that can only be a linguistic fact, transmitting the validity of a statement to another statement. Statements can only be justified by other statements insofar as a 106 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka correspondence theory of truth is rejected in favour of a None of these views are accepted by Rorty though. He coherence theory. The reason why the notion of truth is rejects that we have any (whether direct or indirect) philosophically useless is precisely that there is nothing awareness-relation with language-independent facts. behind justifications. Hence, the reason why we call Nor does he think that truths were made by us. As something as "true" is simply that we hold it to be true. Williams (2009) put, Rorty is sometimes "accused of The expression "It is true" only gives a stronger emphasis linguistic idealism – the view that facts are 'made' rather to expressions like "I guess so" or "I believe it". than 'found'. This charge [...] is unfounded. [...] Rorty is not arguing that everything is nomos and nothing physis After rejecting correspondence between facts and but rather questioning the made/found distinction itself" statements – i.e., accepting antirealism regarding truth – (Williams 2009, p. xviii). Rorty's solution differs from , there are two traditional ways how our relation to facts idealism precisely in the claim that "facts are made" can be understood. First is the view of direct realists who would only be meaningful if facts could be compared to claim that we humans are directly aware of facts. This is any sort of xs of which it were meaningful to claim that a combination of antirealism regarding a metaphysical "xs are, as opposed to facts, found". Since it is precisely notion of truth and realism toward facts and hence facts about which philosophers used to think that they particular truths. According to direct realism, facts are are subject to be found, and no novel opposition has "real" in the same sense as correspondentists think but been introduced between entities that are found and in order to warrant our access to them, no robust those that are made, the claim "facts are made" can be theories of truth, reference, or justification are required. meaningful only if it is read somehow like "the If there is no mind-body dualism, one can claim explanatory framework which identifies facts (being appearances to be real sensory inputs represented in a subject to be found) as opposed to e.g. poems (being wrong and subject to be made) is a misleading one because it misrepresentations can be explained in the same supposes a false dichotomy between what is made and theoretical framework (e.g. via causal explanations). what is found". Not reading it that way is a way. Hence, representations misunderstanding of Rorty. Anyway, this confusion is not The alternative solution is idealism, the view according unique, due to Rorty's well-known temptation to to which facts depend on us. In this view, facts are mind- abbreviate his critical remarks into ostentatious phrases. dependent, or, in its linguistic form, languagedependent. Truths are invented rather than discovered. Admittedly, Rorty follows the idealist tradition in several Facts are true because we made them to be true. Hence, aspects – most notably he follows recent offsprings of facts are conceptually/linguistically structured entities, idealism called textualism (Rorty 1980) and historicism and there is no well-distinguished part of them to be (e.g. Rorty 1995). However, he is clearly an anti-idealist called "the given" which could be isolated from the rest in the most important sense of idealism regarding facts. of them in order to warrant the objective validity of our Namely, he denies that the world around us would be claims about them. Objective validity is therefore not purely an effect of some sort of epistemic activity of the derived from their being real but their being mind and also denies that appearances would purely be constructed: could anything be "more real" than products of the mind. The best way to explain this is something that has been made to be real by ourselves? introducing a distinction between Kantian and Hegelian According to idealism, we have an access to facts idealism. Rorty's philosophy shows several Kantian precisely insofar as facts are our constructions, and they inspirations (see Danka 2010) but he still thinks Kant to are still real because they have been constructed. be the last great dead philosopher to be rejected and Hegel the first to be followed. His reason for this is 107 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka probably that Kant still took seriously that the mind is everything is made" shortly follows. This line would primarily an observer; that the prima philosophia is therefore epistemology. Hegel can be understood as the first interpretation of Michael Williams (which I am tempted philosopher who gave up this concept of philosophy. to follow, except that the distinction between nomos Rorty agrees with the idealist that things are to be and physis would be Kantian in any sense – see Danka explained in terms of construction rather than in terms 2010). This would still be not a knock-out argument of acquiring them. However, the construction is not against this reading though. The main problem with it is epistemic but action theoretical. We do not construct that Rorty often describes himself as a materialist, fictions called "Vorstellungen" once we did not find naturalist or physicalist. These positions are in such an anything out there. We take mundane objects evident themselves (in a sense in which no Kantians but only epistemic/linguistic idealism that no one can seriously Heideggerians suppose an access to them) and make think this contradiction to be unapparent for Rorty them to be tools supporting our purposes. Rorty agrees himself. contradict contradiction the with above-mentioned any form of with the idealist that what is yet unknown has to be created rather than acquired. However, the reason why Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism it has to be created is that it has not been created yet. This seemingly pointless remark is central because in First, some conceptual clarification is in order. Rorty calls pre-Hegelian, knowledge himself a materialist as well as a physicalist or naturalist, acquisition, this distinction could not be made. and even though the three are very close positions, a Temporality (or, more precisely, history) is a key aspect difference in emphasis has to be made. Materialism is of Rorty's relation to idealism and constructivism. the view according to which everything consists of atemporal models of matter. What matter is claimed to be is of course Idealists claim that facts are made epistemically; different from author to author but materialists linguistic idealists claim that facts are made linguistically. definitely hold a monist ontology according to which As opposed to them, Rorty claims that neither our everything consists of material components. As opposed epistemic nor our linguistic capacities are suitable for to that, physicalism is the view according to which making facts. For (epistemic or linguistic) idealists, facts everything consists of physical properties. (Or, in a weak are made ex nihilo. For historicists, facts are altered by version that will be proved to be highly important below, time but not in the sense that a fact that was true can be everything can be described in terms of physical made false (as some sort of relativism might involve) but properties.) Materialism is a doctrine about substances, in the sense that with the flow of time, things happen to whereas physicalism is a doctrine about properties. change by their own and also by our coping with them. Ontologically speaking, materialism, as opposed to However, for Rorty, coping with reality is definitely not traditional mind-matter dualism, is a sort of monism an epistemic activity. about substances. Contemporary materialists do not necessarily speak in terms of substances. They keep All the same, this is no answer to the question how Rorty holding the view, however, that there are only material does relate mind- and language-independent facts to objects "out there". humans. It would be a too easy answer to simply claim 108 that for him, there are no language-independent facts. In contrast, physicalism is better characterised as a sort Namely, it would be the same as following the superficial of antiessentialism. For a physicalist, in order to explain reading that "everything is language-dependent", from physical events, no substances or objects "out there" which the above-refuted "nothing is found because have to be supposed but only properties. Materialism ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka agrees with physicalism that properties are physical Berkeley who claimed mental substance to be a causal because this claim well fits to the materialist world view. power. This is compatible with slight physicalism but Physicalists, on the other hand, do not necessarily hold certainly not with materialism and naturalism). any ontological commitments regarding substances or objects. They only need to be committed to the Despite all their common purposes regarding dualism, existence of (physical) properties. idealist principles become the main target of the other three views. The reason is that all the three traditionally A third closely related position is also worth to mention. argue against dualism via attacking the mental part – i.e., Naturalism is the view which denies any supranatural the one which serves as the ground for idealism. How being or, expressing the same positively, naturalism stressfully they attack the mental is different from case claims that all beings are in accordance with the laws of to case, however, and understanding the whole picture natural sciences. Naturalism is compatible both with requires some further classification. materialism (in denying mental substance) and physicalism (in denying non-physical properties). Though The most offensive weapon against idealists in the hands naturalism ontological of materialists is eliminativism. Eliminative materialism commitments, in this comparison, I shall use the term in claims that there are no mental/psychological states or its so-called methodological version which, for purely properties but they are (falsely) supposed to be just in methodological reasons, supports weak physicalism but order does not hurt or support strong physicalism or consistent. Hence, the mental could be eliminated if folk also materialism either. has versions with 2 to make psychology were folk psychological replaced with a explanations physiological Idealism clearly stands in an opposition to all these description of neural states. A similar but less radical views. Idealism is a sort of monism just as materialism, methodology but it claims that the only substance that exists is simultaneously mental. In this sense, idealists are comrades of Reductionism claims that anything can be adequately materialists, their explained by explaining its components; wholes can be campaign against substance dualists. But their ways how reduced to their parts. Reductive physicalism is dualism should be dissolved clearly differ. Materialists, therefore the view that complex mental phenomena, physicalists and naturalists think the cement of reality to though exist, can be reduced to purely physical be (or to be explained in terms of) causal relations. components. Via this reduction, anything seemingly non- Idealists, on the other hand, explain reality in terms of physical disappears in the explanation. A third reasons instead (except a few physicalist idealists like alternative seems to be a sort of "golden mean" physicalists and naturalists in is reductionism, with some sort often of mentioned physicalism. between the acceptance and the rejection of the mental. An Aristotelian or Lockean concept of matter is no less supranatural than God or the soul. However, as physical phenomena can be described in terms of interactions of material objects, a materialist vocabulary is more suitable for naturalist purposes than a mental one. Strictly speaking, I would take naturalism to be opposite of both idealism and materialism, assuming that the connection between materialism and naturalism is only a contingent historical fact. However, admittedly, the borders between these positions had never been clarified as sharply as my approach would require. Hence, I shall follow the mainstream view that naturalism and materialism are compatible with each other, regarding their target (which is the mental part of substance dualism) though not their purposes. 2 Namely, a purely methodological or instrumental naturalism – or, as also labelled sometimes, naturalistic pragmatism – does not deny the existence of mental states like eliminative materialism, nor does it say with reductive physicalism that mental states can be reduced to physical properties. Naturalistic pragmatism is namely naturalist only at the level of methodology: it interprets Quine (1953)'s claim that our only reason for preferring a physical explanation of reality e.g. to a mythological world view is (roughly) that it explains phenomena more 109 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka comprehensively, more economically and in a more other vocabularies for certain purposes. For a aesthetical manner for our naturalist taste. naturalistic pragmatist, ontologies can be seen as tools or models just as scientific theories. They are not to be Naturalistic pragmatism tends to hold that everything managed as some fundaments of all that can be said can be described causally but they see causal about reality. The only ontologically relevant claim of a explanations as a purely methodological device that naturalistic pragmatist is that we should prefer any should be applied with care. Though it assumes that e.g. ontology that excludes such features of mental interpersonal relations can be explained in causal terms phenomena that can hurt the causal closure of reality. to a certain degree, it also assumes that we have no Mental need of such an explanation for the reason that physical/natural insofar as they can be identified as parts interpersonal relations can be much more plausibly of a causal chain on the grounds that they have physical explained in sociological and/or psychological terms. causes Non-reductionist physicalism is in this sense closer to naturalism in an opposition to his linguistic idealist naturalistic pragmatism than to reductionist physicalism: readings as follows: phenomena and effects. should Brandom be explained interprets as Rorty's a non-reductionist physicalist like Davidson does not claim that everything is physical; rather she claims that everything depends on the physical. She allows that there are mental properties at a higher level of complexity but mental properties supervene on physical properties at a micro-structural level. Hence, any "[Rorty's] critique of representationalism is founded not on denying or ignoring the causal context [...] but precisely on a hard-headed insistence and focus upon the significance of that context. What distinguishes his view is rather his claim that the sense in which the talk answers to its environment must be understood solely in causal terms" (Brandom 2000b, pp. 160-161). alterations at the level of mental can be physically explained by some alterations at the level of microstructures. The difference between a Davidsonian nonreductive physicalist and a Rortyan naturalistic pragmatist is that the former does not deny that there really are physical properties at the micro-structural level, because the efficiency of a physical vocabulary is a sufficient reason to extend its claims to ontology. In contrast, the latter thinks that Davidsonian "physical properties" and "the micro-structural level" are just theoretical suppositions that are meaningful only within a description or vocabulary. They think that it is According to Brandom, this Rortyan view echoes the Sellarsian idea that things cannot affect us normatively (normativity is one of the key notions of idealism), and hence the only connection between us and reality can be causal. Similarly to "the" pragmatist notion of truth, representation also has to be explained in, or perhaps explained away by, an account of human-world interaction in terms of causes and effects. No sort of idealism is compatible with a world view in solely causal terms. This is a conclusive argument against Rorty's idealist interpretations. sufficient for a denial of the existence of physical properties at the level of ontology, precisely because they are still description-dependent. At this point we have arrived at a statement that now seems to be too strongly anti-idealist for Rortyan purposes. How could a primacy of causal explanations Insofar as a plurality of explanations is not applied to a "plurality" of reality (resulting in two distinct spheres of beings like in substance dualism), there is no conflict between the point that everything is explicable by a causal vocabulary of natural sciences on the one hand, and the point that something is better explained by over all sorts of non-causal explanations be serving as a bridge between causal/scientific and non-causal/artistic vocabularies? How can this sort of naturalism be harmonised with the claim that natural sciences are not superior to humanities? The answer follows from a shift from the level of the explanations of reality to the metalevel of explanations of explanations. While ontological 110 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka naturalists agree with eliminative materialists that level of ontology, Davidson supposes that only physical physical explanations are about reality and hence what events exist ("all events are physical"). At the level of will ever remain unexplained by natural sciences cannot explanations, there are, however, phenomena described exist, naturalistic pragmatists agree with non-reductive in mental terms (which cannot be given "purely physical physicalists that physical explanations are descriptions explanations"). just as mental explanations, and from this they conclude that description-independent reality in itself is neither An ontology of events supposes two sorts of relations mental nor material. between events: causality and identity (Davidson 1969). If the fundamental structure of reality is explained in Descriptions and Events terms of events (rather than in terms of objects), one can plausibly explain both static explanandum (an Davidson claims that his own position about the mind- object's being there) and dynamic explanandum (e.g. matter dichotomy called anomalous monism moving) within the same framework. It means that an ontology of events is suitable for providing a temporal "resembles materialism [in my terminology, rather physicalism is appropriate here – I.D.] in its claim that all events are physical but rejects the thesis, usually considered essential to materialism, that mental phenomena can be given purely physical explanations" (Davidson 1970, p. 141). This remark contains two statements. On the one hand, anomalous monism is physicalist in accepting that all events are physical. But on the other hand, it is nonphysicalist in rejecting that mental phenomena can be explained purely physically. It seems that the apparent contradiction between the two statements could be dissolved if an appropriate distinction were made between events and phenomena. A possible way to do so is that non-reductive physicalism allows mental properties at a higher level but only claims they are extension of ontology which is highly important for Rortyan historicists. All the same, if there is basically one type of ontological entities, namely, events, our metaphysics is monist regarding first-order ontological categories (since causality is a derivative, second-order category, serving as relations among events). It does not mean, however, that our explanations or descriptions of those events could only be causal. In order to rationalise events (i.e., to treat certain events as intentional actions), it is preferable to use a normative vocabulary of reasons, beliefs, and other pro-attitudes. Certain events are simply more elegantly explained (in accordance with instrumental naturalism) in a way like "Brutus killed Caesar because he wanted to keep Rome as a republic and he believed his killing of Caesar supports his desire". explicable by physical properties at micro-structural level. I accept this as a valid pathway but relating the point appropriately to Rorty's interpretation of Davidson (and Davidson's action theory rather than his philosophy of mind), I would prefer to understand this remark within the framework of an ontology of events. According to an ontology of events, the only kind of entities is events in a causal chain, and phenomena other than causal can only occur at the level of descriptions (not a level of alleged high-order ontological beings). Hence, what I offer as an interpretation of this statement is a distinction between events and explanations instead of events and phenomena. At the The problem with such explanations is that they seem to commit us to a supposition of mental entities like reasons, beliefs, desires, etc. Davidson's landmark thesis was the assumption that pro-attitudes can be described as causes of an action (Davidson 1963). In the final analysis, propositional attitudes (serving as reasons for an act) cause the agent to do its act. Causal descriptions are superior to normative descriptions insofar as every event can be described in terms of causes and effects, but only certain events – and definitely not certain types of events – can be described in normative terms. The mental-physical distinction is a contrast at the level of 111 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka descriptions, whereas at the level of ontology, descriptions: they consist in two different ways of everything is supposed to be, in accordance with explaining certain partially overlapping aspects of physicalism, explicable in causal terms. With Rorty's reality. 3 words, Davidson, Rorty, and Naturalistic Pragmatism "to say that Davidson is an anti-reductionist physicalist is to say that he combines [physicalism] with the doctrine that 'reduction' is a relation between linguistic items, not among ontological categories. To reduce the language of X's to the language of Y's one must show either (a) that if you can talk about Y's you do not need to talk about X's, or (b) that any given description in terms of X's applies to all and only the things to which a given description in terms of Y's applies. But neither sort of reduction would show that 'X's are nothing but Y's', any more than it shows the converse" (Rorty 1987, pp. 114-115). Nevertheless, it is more than a coincidence or an impact of the recent Zeitgeist that both Davidson and Rorty claim themselves to be physicalists. Davidson builds up all his philosophy to a causal account of an ontology of events and causal explanations are hardly compatible with idealist or dualist accounts. Davidson follows Quine in rejecting non-empiricist dogmas of empiricism, claiming that the scheme-content dualism is as worthless as the analytic-synthetic dualism (Davidson If so, anti-reductionist physicalists ignore (either positive or negative) ontological commitments to the mental. From this angle, Davidson's physicalism seems to be rather irrelevant regarding his anti-reductionism. He could even assume that reality is neither mental nor physical but, let us say, "ontical" (where "ontical" could be explained only in a non-mentalist and non-physicalist vocabulary). Davidson carefully applies his physicalism to descriptions instead of properties as reductive physicalists do (Baker 2009). In fact, it is very hard to argue in what sense events themselves can be claimed to be physical in a Davidsonian framework, except the 1974). His attempts can be well put into a pragmatist trend of leading an all-out attack against any theoretical backgrounds of a Cartesian-inspired dualism between the external and the internal, between the physical and the mental, and, perhaps with less emphasis but no less importance, between the scientific and the artistic. This line has been developed further by Rorty who, in order to reject representationist vocabularies, also has to deny that the human-world relation could be normative. If the human-world relation is normative then normative categories like truth, reference, justification, and other stuff of the representationist vocabularies would apply unprovable hypothesis that our causal descriptions are applicable to each and all events. For Davidson, every event is claimed to be describable in physical vocabularies but there are at least some events that cannot be described in mental vocabularies (Davidson 1970, p. 141). Roughly, this is all his argumentation for the claim that reality itself is physical rather than mental. Events – the building blocks of spatio-temporal reality – can be described several ways, among which physical and mental descriptions have been central to the interests of philosophers. They do not cover, however, two different fields of investigation, and especially do not refer to two ontologically distinct sets of entities (even though the mental is irreducible). Rather the mental and the physical are ways of 112 3 Following Davidson, two different interpretations can be provided to this "overlap". The difference between the two is central to the way how to dissolve the mentalphysical dualism at the level of ontology (though irrelevant for Rortyan purposes). First, one can assume that the physical entails the mental; events that have mental descriptions is a subset of events that have physical descriptions. Second, one can say that because of the structural differences in causal chains and normative chains like chains of reasoning, supervenience can only be applied holistically, and hence speaking in mental terms commits us to an entirely different ontology of particular events from the one supposed by speaking in physical terms. I assume the two ways can be held independently but can also be easily harmonised. Whichever route one chooses, however, the distinction has been transformed to the level of descriptions and even if one holds that there are ontological implications of our distinction in our descriptions, she has to admit that these are not genuinely ontological questions. ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka to it. This would also count for the primacy of science over arts. epistemological foundationalism" 2000b, p. 159 – emphasis added). (Brandom With no doubt, the early Rorty's masterpiece by which Clearly, the most appropriate candidate for the role of a non-normative description is a causal vocabulary supported by materialism, physicalism and/or naturalism. At first sight, this can be done only by a naturalisation of normativity at the level of ontology as well, since if one ignores ontological questions, one cannot say anything about the human-world relation he provided the most comprehensive "diagnosis of the conceptual bankruptcy of epistemological foundationalism" is his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Rorty's therapy to this diagnosis was a sort of therapism he attributed, somewhat surprisingly, to Carnap. In the Preface to the book, he identified his own inspirations as follows: itself. Actually, this was the way Rorty chose in the 1960s when he developed his own sort of eliminative materialism. According to Brandom, Rorty's views had contained several insights still at this point that became later central to him. Most notably, Rorty had held "pragmatism about epistemic norms", the view "Getting back to [the assumptions behind most of modern philosophy], and making clear that they are optional, I believed, would be 'therapeutic' in the way in which Carnap's original dissolution of standard textbook problems was 'therapeutic'. This book is the result of that attempt" (Rorty 1979, pp. xiii-xiv). according to which "any normative matter of epistemic authority or privilege [...] is ultimately intelligible only in terms of social practices" (Brandom 2000b, p. 159). In his reply, Rorty says he did not realise this connection, and although he finds it illuminating, he also admits that "in the 1960s I was over-ontological, and too inclined to talk However the results of this attempt can be understood retrospectively in the light of his later pragmatism, Rorty's original purpose with the Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature was a good old positivist elimination of metaphysical problems, and he thought that metaphysical problems could be explained away by about what 'really' exists" (Rorty 2000b, p. 190. fn. 4). clarifying linguistic misunderstandings. Much later on, he Certainly, Rorty's eliminative materialism is about eliminating sensation-terms rather than directly sensations themselves or other mental phenomena (see esp. Rorty 1965, Rorty 1970) but via this by-pass, it intends to attack sensations themselves on the argues against therapism (particularly, in the case of Wittgenstein – see Rorty 2007, Danka 2011). But in the 1970s when he further developed his eliminative materialism introduced in the 1960s, he clearly agreed with the aims of that approach. supposition that linguistic analysis results in ontological differences. Hence, whether it is deeply grounded in pragmatism (as Brandom thinks) is a doubtful point. Pragmatism, in Brandom's use of the term, is an often illuminating but by no means generally accepted characterisation of the method of tracing back ontological and epistemological questions to a vocabulary in terms of social practices. Brandom argues for his point as follows. A de-ontologisation of Rorty's early arguments is central to my present purposes. Namely, he reformulated his views about the mind-body dualism in his 1987 paper Non-reductive Physicalism that he owes to Davidson. Why he prefers the term "non-reductive physicalism" to its original name anomalous monism is probably a matter of emphasis. While for Davidson, it was important to state that he is a monist but he does not accept psychological laws (reducible to neurological "Although Rorty did not put the point just this way, I take it that it is specifically pragmatism about epistemic norms that structures this diagnosis of the conceptual bankruptcy of laws), for Rorty, it was important to state that he is a non-reductivist, as opposed to his early quasi- reductionism (but, anyway, he still prefers the physical 113 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka vocabulary). Rorty (1987) has good reasons why he does If someone is a physicalist, she can avoid problems of not need to eliminate ontological entities anymore linguistic idealism (most notably, the problem of how (whether on linguistic grounds or not). Namely he claims reality could be "made" linguistically but objectively). If that she is a non-reductive physicalist, she can also avoid problems of reductionism (first of all, the problem how "once we drop the notion of 'consciousness' there is no harm in continuing to speak of a distinct entity called 'the self' which consists of the mental states of the human being: her beliefs, desires, moods, etc. The important thing is to think of the collection of those things as being the self rather than as something which the self has" (Rorty 1987, p. 123). we explain away mental phenomena without throwing the baby out with the bath water). A non-reductive physicalist does not even have to claim physical explanations to be prioritised over other sorts of explanations. On the contrary, other explanations can be equally valid for her. She only claims that "an overall If we say that there is no centre of consciousness but our pro-attitudes constitute what we call "the self", there is physical description of the world" is definitely one of the valid explanations (Nyírő 2010, p. 4). no reason to think that the self is something behind proattitudes which Davidson (1963) put into the causal chain. Hence, there is no reason to think that an acceptance of a mental vocabulary would commit us to any causally inexplicable entities. On the contrary, an acceptance of a mental vocabulary has nothing to do with ontological beings themselves. All the same, if someone is a non-reductive physicalist, she can keep a minimalist realism about facts or truths, even if she gives up explaining them in a robust theory of truth. She can assume with Davidson that the world is physical, and when we speak about it, our statements can be true or false in a Tarskian way. She can assume all these even though she has only linguistic reasons to do Hence, one can keep speaking, contrary to Rorty's early eliminative materialism, about mental phenomena without actually committing us to the existence of them. If we are Davidsonians, without falling into reductionism, we can satisfy our physicalist needs. Instead of reality based on linguistic grounds, we can speak about pure descriptions like Continental philosophers do. Hence, on Davidsonian grounds, Rorty was able to eliminate his eliminative materialism, and also open the door to his late, open-minded approach to different philosophical traditions. He did not need much to do. He was instrumentalist enough to replace his less efficient theory with Davidson's one that fits better to Rorty's own purposes and differed from his views only in the ontological unnecessary, commitments if not which were otherwise straightforwardly awkward, consequences of eliminative materialism. 114 mind-independent "out there", even though she can say this only via language- and mind-dependent descriptions. These assumptions cannot be refuted precisely for the same reasons why they cannot be proved, since what we have as refutations and proofs are only descriptions. Why the Davidsonian still can hold that she is justified in her belief that there is something beyond descriptions is her notion of cause. She claims that, at the end of the day, reality can really reward or penalise us, because, as Rorty and Davidson hold, our relation to reality is causal rather than representational or, in other words, the human-world relation lies in coping with our environment rather than going to a Cartesian play. 4 Interestingly enough, Rorty was seemingly uninspired by Davidson in the 1970s, even though they were fellows at Princeton from 1967 to 1970. He started frequently referring to Davidson's work only in the 1980s. I hardly believe that Rorty had been unaware of Davidson's 4 so. She can hold that there is something language- and philosophy of action (developed in the 1960s-1970s) before his turn toward Continental philosophy. Presumably it was precisely his turn that made him realise how usefully Davidson's views can be applied for his purposes. ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka Paradoxically enough, Rorty differs from Davidson to do so because descriptions as instruments work quite precisely in that he exploited what is more Rortyan in well without ontological commitments as well. Davidson's non-reductive physicalism than Rorty's own eliminative materialism could ever be. It is an advantage What distinguishes Davidsonian non-reductionist for Rortyans that Davidson never wanted to exploit fully. physicalists from Rortyan naturalistic pragmatists is that Namely, the possibility of speaking about descriptions no naturalistic pragmatist can say that the world itself is without any ontological commitments. The reason why physical. "Why cannot we get Reality (aka How the Rorty did not follow Davidson in committing himself to World Really Is In Itself) right?" - asks Rorty and then he physicalism about events or facts is that he thought that replies: "Because there are no norms for talking about it" the notion of facts and non-robust truths, in any (Rorty 2000d, p. 375). Getting reality would mean minimalist sense, still contain normative elements (like grasping it linguistically. It would mean that reality individuating the event in question). Even some Rortyans should have to conform our norms and our vocabularies like Brandom dangerously think facts to be reasons and could force reality to do what we want. Thanks to hence norm-governed, instead of thinking the same with Davidson, Rortyans think they occasionally could, though Davidson conversely, that reasons are factual (i.e., not by a proper description of, but causal effects on, it. causal) and this is why they mostly work effectively in our coping with reality. Rorty protests against the view that causal connections, especially Conclusion perceptual experience, could provide reasons to us. If he accepted I may predict (obviously with no decisive evidence this, he should accept the science-art opposition on the supporting my claim) that from a historical perspective, grounds that science does have such reasons but art Rorty's attempt to unify some of the most prominent does not. The alternative, Davidsonian way claims that analytic and Continental philosophers' views will be seen whatever our reasons are (being even groundless one of his most significant contributions to the history of perceptually), they were caused by reality and do have philosophy. Regarding his professional impact strictly, his causal effects on it. Insofar as those effects are argumentation against representationist theories of appropriate, it is indifferent if at the level of mental knowledge, language and mind may be seen as most descriptions, our reasons counts as valid or not. central. In the light of the final paragraphs of his Nonreductive Physicalism, it nonetheless seems that anti- Nevertheless, denying that we can identify language- representationism also supports his further purpose of independent facts is not the same as denying language- unifying arts and sciences. independent facts themselves. Language-independent facts are not denied by Rorty either. His only claim is Rorty is able to ignore questions of a representation-like that without identification, it is senseless to talk about world-human relation only if he supposes that relation them but it is much better to cope with them. There is to be causal. He cannot simply say that there is no such no need to talk about "how the world really is" because relation at all, because it would involve one of the we can cope with our environment without such following theories quite well. On purely instrumentalist grounds, it scepticism, often attributed to him, which claims that is reasonable to say with Davidson for a naturalistic there is no connection between us and reality; (2) pragmatist that she is a physicalist, because physicalist linguistic idealism, which is another frequent accusation, vocabularies work quite effectively, and that is all that claiming that the Cartesian gap can be bridged over only pragmatists need to have in order to accept them. But by an extension of the internal to the external; (3) Rorty is right that nothing forces naturalist pragmatists reductive physicalism or eliminative materialism, his three undesirable consequences: (1) 115 ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka early but over-ontological attempt, claiming that the something to be said about our relation to the rest of Cartesian gap can be bridged over only by an extension the world. By his good fortune, he found a good of the external to the internal. None of them is comrade to his interests. Davidson's theory that our pro- acceptable if one's purpose is harmonising sciences and attitudes, constituting the self, are under some arts, i.e., the two most important forms of our relation descriptions in a causal relation with reality, is a to the external and the internal. plausible account of the mind-world relation in nonrepresentational terms by which Davidsonians can avoid Rorty prefers rejecting the whole theoretical framework falling back into the representationist way of speaking, of fundamental philosophical questions instead of while developing a pragmatist view about how we choosing one of the overworked alternatives. But he humans relate to the rest of the world. cannot ignore the problem that there must be References Baker, Lynne Rudder (2009) "Nonreductive Materialism." In (B. McLaughlin and A. Beckermann eds), The Oxford Handbook for the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 109–120. Bilgrami, Akeel (2000) "Is Truth a Goal of Inquiry? Rorty and Davidson on Truth ." In Brandom (2000a). Brandom, Robert ed. (2000a) Rorty and His Critics. Oxford: Blackwell. Brandom, Robert (2000b) "Vocabularies of Pragmatism: Synthesizing Naturalism and Historicism." In Brandom (2000a). Danka, István (2010) "Why not Allies Rather than Enemies? Dewey and Rorty on Kant." Pragmatism Today. Vol. 1. No. 1. Danka, István (2011) "A Case Study on the Limits of Ironic Redescription: Rorty on Wittgenstein." (In the present volume.) Davidson, Donald (1963) "Actions, Reasons, and Causes." In Davidson (2001). Davidson, Donald (1967) "Individuation of Events." In Davidson (2001). Davidson, Donald (1970) "Mental Events". In Davidson (2001). Davidson, Donald (1974) "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." In his Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Davidson, Donald (1986) "A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge." In (E. LePore ed), Truth and Interpretation. Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 307-319. Davidson, Donald (2000) "Truth Rehabilitated." In Brandom (2000a). Davidson, Donald (2001) Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 116 Nyírő, Miklós (2010) "Rorty, Dewey and the Issue of Metaphysics." Pragmatism Today. Vol. 1. No. 1. Rorty (1965) "Mind-Body Identity, Privacy, and Categories." The Review of Metaphysics. Vol. 19. No. 1. pp. 24-54. Rorty (1970) In Defense of Eliminative Materialism." The Review of Metaphysics. Vol. 24. No. 1. pp. 112121. Rorty, Richard (1979) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rorty, Richard (1980) "Nineteenth-Century Idealism and Twentieth-Century Textualism." In his Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982. Rorty, Richard (1986) "Pragmatism, Davidson and Truth." In (E. LePore ed.), Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson. Oxford: Blackwell. Also reprinted in Rorty (1991) Rorty, Richard (1987) "Non-reductive Physicalism." In Rorty (1991). Rorty, Richard (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, Richard (1991) Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, Richard (1995) "Dewey Between Hegel and Darwin." In Herman J. Saatkamp (ed.), Rorty & Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics. Vanderbilt University Press. Rorty, Richard (2000a) "Response to Davidson." In Brandom (2000a). Rorty, Richard (2000b) "Response to Brandom." In Brandom (2000a). Rorty, Richard (2000c) "Response to Bilgrami." In Brandom (2000a). Rorty, Richard (2000d) "Response to Ramberg." In Brandom (2000a). ELIMINATIVE MATERIALISM ELIMINATED: R O R T Y A N D D A V I D S O N O N T H E M I N D - W O R L D R E L A T I O N Istvan Danka Rorty, Richard (2007) "Wittgenstein and the Linguistic Turn." In his Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Quine, W.V.O. (1953) "On What There Is". In his From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Sandbothe, Mike (2003) "Davidson and Rorty on Truth. Reshaping Analytic Philosophy for a Transcontinental Conversation." In (C. Prado ed), A House Divided: Comparing Analytic and Continental Philosophers. Amherst: Humanities Press. pp. 235-258. Williams, Michael (2009) "Introduction to the ThirtiethAnniversary Edition". In Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. ThirtiethAnniversary Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. xiii.-xxx. 117 “A LIBERAL WHO IS UNWILLING TO BE AN IRONIST” movement from subject-centered rationality to 3 RORTY’S RELATION TO HABERMAS communicative rationality.” One of Rorty’s central aims György Pápay is to create a broader narrative framework in which he (papaygy@gmail.com) can synthetize the main figures of both the Continental and the analytic tradition who rebelled against the Cartesian–Kantian – or else, “epistemological” – conception of philosophy, and, as the quotation shows, The relation of recent pragmatist thought to the Habermas seems to provide him useful conceptual tools distinguished German philosopher Jürgen Habermas – for this purpose. For Rorty, the switch from subject- and inversely, the relation of Habermas to pragmatism – centered rationality to communicative rationality is the is an interesting topic in itself. Thinkers considered as abandonment of the idea of philosophy as a strict pragmatists like Hilary Putnam or Richard Bernstein refer science or queen of the sciences. If we attribute to his work frequently, and some of them even classify epistemic authority to the subject in the Cartesian way, him as a quasi-pragmatist: take, for example, Matthew then we will need a quasi-science – epistemology – to Festenstein’s Pragmatism and Political Theory in which bridge the gap between the subject and the world; but if the author devotes many pages to Habermas’ ideas on we attribute it to a communicative community, we can politics. 1 The catalyst of the neopragmatist revival, dissolve the need for hard scientific objectivity in the 4 Richard Rorty also treats Habermas with a distinctive need for intersubjective agreement. respect and regards him as one of the most important contemporary philosophers. Therefore one might think The notion of community is also suitable to connect the that the investigation of Habermas’ influence on Rorty’s two fields of interest those are common to both thinking could result in deep and subtle insights. But a thinkers: post-Hegelian philosophy and democratic closer look to Rorty’s writings does not verify this politics. Both of them are suspicious of the core assumption and makes it clear that his relation to philosophical project of the Enlightenment – that is, Habermas is much more complicated than it seems at epistemological foundationalism – while provide a the first sight. massive support for its political project. According to 2 Rorty, the ethos of the Enlightenment was to create Although Rorty’s admiration for Habermas as a thinker is more inclusive societies in place of the former indisputable, it is restricted to a very general level. As he traditionalist and exclusivist ones, and the best present mentions in a response given to Habermas, “His The form Philosophical Discourse of Modernity made an enormous constitutional, liberal democracy of Northern-Atlantic impression on me. Ever since I read it I have thought of countries. the ’linguistic turn’ as subsumable within the larger philosophers who work on the latter project rather than of such an inclusivist Rorty community counts Habermas among is the those the former one; as he puts it, “For Dewey, as for 1 Cf. Matthew Festenstein, Pragmatism and Political Theory, Polity, Cambridge (Mass.), 1997, 146–168. 2 See, for example, Richard Rorty, „Religion as a Conversation-stopper”, in Philosophy and Social Hope, Penguin, New York, 1999, 170 („Rawls and Habermas [are] the two most prominent social thinkers of the present day”) or Richard Rorty, „Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy”, in Truth and Progress, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (Mass.), 1998, 307 („I think of Jacques Derrida as the most intriguing and ingenious of contemporary philosophers, and of Jürgen Habermas as the most socially useful”). Habermas, what takes the place of the urge to represent 3 Richard Rorty, Response to Jürgen Habermas, in Robert Brandom (ed.), Rorty and His Critics, Blackwell, Oxford, 2000, 56. 4 This is, of course, the main line of the argument that Rorty presents in his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton UP, Princeton, 1979, 173–182). Thus Habermasian concepts of subject-centered and communicative rationality contribute only to a later reformulation of the position that he labels there as „epistemological behaviorism”. “A L I B E R A L W H O I S U N W I L L I N G T O B E A N I R O N I S T ” R O R T Y ’ S R E L A T I O N T O H A B E R M A S György Pápay reality accurately is the urge to come to free agreement philosophy is central to philosophy as, for the analytic with our fellow human beings – to be full participanting tradition, that philosophy of language is central.” Many 5 7 The schools of philosophy assume that there is a central Deweyan–Habermasian branch of philosophy puts “the function of their discipline; for Habermas and his warfare between science and theology” aside and results disciples this function is essentially social. In contrast, in what Rorty describes as “a combination of intellectual Rorty thinks that there is no such thing as the central members of a free community of inquiry.” history and cultural criticism”. 6 function of philosophy because we are not able to find a single notion of philosophy that can include such On this general level Habermas does seem to be a quasi- different thinkers as Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, or a fellow pragmatist from Rorty’s perspective, too. Carnap, Heidegger, Rawls and Derrida – all we have are However, when it comes to more specific philosophical family resemblances in the Wittgensteinian sense. questions, Rorty’s relation to Habermas becomes rather Therefore he suggests that if once we have given up the polemical. What is more, sometimes he even uses idea that the function of philosophy is to provide Habermas to illustrate a philosophical position that he foundations for human knowledge, we had better not to finds problematic. The explanation for this seemingly try to substitute it with another central function. contradictory situation is Rorty’s conviction that Habermas is heading the right direction but his break This question becomes important when we make with foundationalist philosophy is not consequent – or decisions about the merit of certain philosophers. If the else, not radical – enough. According to Rorty, he tries to ultimate context in which one intends to judge the work preserve certain features of metaphysical thinking which of a philosopher is a political one, then many of them will prove to be unnecessary if we get rid of the notion will prove to be worthless easily. As Rorty points out, the of philosophy as a foundational enterprise. In the explanation for Habermas’ highly critical attitude following I will examine three questions which are towards such philosophers as Heidegger and Derrida is connected to each other and in which Rorty’s opinion the fact that he treats them as failed public diverges from Habermas’ significantly. The examination philosophers. In contrast, Rorty suggest that we had of these questions – about the function of philosophy, better treat them as philosophers whose work is suitable the ideal of universal validity, and the use of a for private purposes – that is, whose work can provide philosophical theory of democracy – sheds a different us new self-descriptions or self-images. One of the main light on the relation of the two philosophers and shifts reasons for the private-public distinction established by the emphasis from their similarities to their differences. Rorty in Contingency, Irony and Solidarity is the intention to protect idiosyncratic philosophers such as Derrida 1. The function of philosophy from one-sided interpretations for which the only criterion is political usefulness. I will not try to decide As Rorty notes in his Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, here the question whether Rorty’s “private” reading is “Habermas shares […] the assumption that the real consitent with the self-understanding of Derrida, but it is meaning of a philosophical view consists in its political clear that if we abandon the idea of an ultimate context implications […]. For the tradition within which – whether it is politics or language – we will take a huge Habermas is working, it is as obvious that political step towards a more pluralistic picture of philosophy. 5 Richard Rorty, „Education as Socialization and as Individualization”, in Philosophy and Social Hope, 119. 6 Richard Rorty, „Naturalism and Quietism”, in Philosophy as Cultural Politics, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (Mass.), 2007, 148. 7 Richard Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge UP, Cambridge (Mass.), 1989, 83. 119 “A L I B E R A L W H O I S U N W I L L I N G T O B E A N I R O N I S T ” R O R T Y ’ S R E L A T I O N T O H A B E R M A S György Pápay According to this pluralistic view, there are not only that if we give up the notion of universal validity, then different kinds of philosophers whose work is suitable we will not be able to defend liberal democracy against for different purposes but it is also possible for a its enemies. If there is no universally valid justification philosopher to be committed to different purposes for democratic commitment, then it will be only one without trying to synthetize them in a single theory or in opinion among others. Therefore, goes the argument of a single vocabulary. A philosopher can be, to use Rorty’s Habermas and his disciples, we either preserve the terminology, a liberal – whose aim is to maximize social notion of universal validity or accept an unrestricted solidarity – and an ironist – who puts private self- form of relativism that treats every political views as creation in the first place – at the same time. Many equal and thus opens the gate before authoritarianism. philosophers think that the two positions contradict to each other. There are ironists who are unwilling to be In contrast to this line of thought, Rorty insists that we liberals, like Foucault and other representative figures of had better get rid of the notion of universal validity. As contemporary French thought. And the best example of he writes, a universally valid justification would be one the liberal who is unwilling to be an ironist, according to that sounds convincing to all possible audiences – 8 Rorty, is Habermas himself. Whether this classification including ones in the past or in the future, or ones which is fair or not, the fact that Rorty picks out Habermas as consist of people whose beliefs are radically different an influental thinker with whom to contrast his “liberal from ours. Rorty thinks that this is only a philosopher’s ironist” position shows that he gives more weight to the dream; in reality, we are able to justify our theories or differences between their perspectives than to the institutions only in a community that already shares a similarities between them. Habermas reminds Rorty of great amount of our values and convictions. Maybe it those philosophers who try to unify all possible human sounds like relativism but Rorty is certainly not a concerns in a single vision of social utility. relativist – he is convinced that democracy is better than 10 any other forms of government. What he questions is 2. The ideal of universal validity that there is a common ground for the debate between the admirers of democracy and that of authoritarianism; According to Rorty, Habermas is not only convinced that not because they cannot understand each other or have political philosophy is the center of philosophy itself but incommensurable views, but because they rely on tries to preserve in this field some disputable ideas of significantly different premises. He dubs his own stance foundationalism. As he puts it, “[Habermas’] theory of as ethnocentrism in order to highlight the fact that the communicative action is a sort of surrogate for scope of justification is always limited to a discoursive 9 metaphysics and epistemology”. Rorty is suspicious of community – an “ethnos” – the members of which will notions such as “undistorted communication” or “ideal take one’s reasons as reasons. speech situation” but the main target of his criticism is not specific to Habermasian theory. Rorty notices that While Rorty condemns the ideal of universal validity as a many including remnant of foundationalist philosophy, he is also aware Habermas and even pragmatists such as Hilary Putnam, of that Habermas’ insistence on it can be explained by cling to the ideal of universal validity that is certain historical reasons. As he puts it, “The idea of characteristic to metaphysical thinking. The reason for communal self-creation, of realizing a dream which has this is not purely philosophical but also political. It seems no justification in unconditional claims to universal non-foundationalist philosophers, validity, sound suspicious to Habermas and Apel because 8 Cf. Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, 61. Richard Rorty, „Pragmatism and Law: A Response to David Luban”, in Philosophy and Social Hope, 108. 9 120 10 Cf. Richard Rorty, „Universality and Truth”, in Rorty and His Critics, 12–14. “A L I B E R A L W H O I S U N W I L L I N G T O B E A N I R O N I S T ” R O R T Y ’ S R E L A T I O N T O H A B E R M A S György Pápay they naturally associate it with Hitler. It sounds better to relation of theory and practice, and thus on the need for Americans, because they naturally associate it with a theory of democracy differ significantly from his views. 11 Jefferson, Whitman and Dewey.” Maybe that is why Habermas is looking for ahistorical, neutral, context- Although democracy is obviously an important topic for independent principles in order to justify liberal Rorty, in his work we will not find a detailed – democracy. The question is, on what basis can we decide substantive or normative – theory of democracy. between Hitler and Jefferson. As Rorty argues, the According to him, in order to understand democratic adequate basis for a such a decision are proper historical politics we do not need a theory of democracy, as well as narratives rather than philosophical theories. That is why in order to unmask totalitarian politics we do not need a he thinks, pace Habermas, that even if we the give up theory of totalitarianism. Granted, the sort of theory in the notion of universal validity, we will have effective which Habermas is intrested in is not only descriptive tools against the enemies of democracy. For Rorty, the but normative: its aim is to correct the practice of actual defence of democracy consist not in arguments but in democracies. But, unlike Habermas, Rorty thinks that socialization, “the rich democracies of the present day already contain education and the construction of the sorts of institutions necessary for their own reform convincing narratives. and that the communication among the citizens of those 3. The theory of democracy democracies is not ’distorted’ by anything more esoteric than greed, fear, ignorance and resentment.” 14 As his Since Habermas thinks that philosophy has important persistent polemy against the so-called American political implications – or even that its main implications Cultural Left shows, Rorty is convinced that abstract are political – and also believes that theoretical social theory makes more harm than good. The more justification of democracy is not only possible but normative our theoretical framework is, the more necessary, it is not surprising that he gives much weight imperfect will our actual democratic practice seem. And, to the theory of democracy. On the one hand, he has a as Rorty argues, this will lead only to impatience and not general conviction that philosophy as a discipline can to the careful reform of that practice. make valuable contributions to democratic politics. On the other hand, he practices what he preaches: he has Elsewhere I argued for in more details that Rorty’s worked out a substantive theory of democracy. In relation to deliberative theories of democracy is not contrast and necessarily sympathetic at all. He is not only suspicious communitarian models of democracy, he has argued for of highly normative approaches to democracy such as another widely deliberative ones but, as his ethnocentrism indicates, he Since is also aware of the limits of deliberation and has doubts notions like consensus and conversation appear about that every contested political questions can be frequently in Rorty’s writings, some interpreters resolved by the means of discussion. What is more, his attribute to him a similar conception of democracy than realistic or even pessimistic views presented in to the normative acknowledged as that of Habermas. received model that deliberative 13 proceduralist is now democracy. 12 However, Rorty’s views on the 15 Contingency, Irony and Solidarity concerning the formation of the communal “we” – which he treats as 11 Rorty, „Universality and Truth”, 3. Cf. Jürgen Habermas, „Three Normative Models of Democracy”, in The inclusion of the Other, The MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), 1998. 13 See, for example, Chantal Mouffe, „Deconstruction, Pragmatism and the Politics of Democracy”, in Chantal Mouffe (ed.), Deconstruction and Pragmatism, Routledge, New York, 1996, 4–9. 12 14 Rorty, „Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy”, 326. 15 See my book published in Hungarian: Demokrácia filozófiai megalapozás nélkül: Richard Rorty és a politikai filozófia [Democracy Without Philosophical Foundations: Richard Rorty and Political Philosophy], Ráció, Budapest, 2010, 59–74. 121 “A L I B E R A L W H O I S U N W I L L I N G T O B E A N I R O N I S T ” R O R T Y ’ S R E L A T I O N T O H A B E R M A S György Pápay always contrasted to “them” – suggest that he is aware of the limits of political consensus, too. 16 But whether done more day-to-day work in the political arena, or done more for the goals of us social democrats.” 18 The we accept the latter interpretation or not, it is clear that, careful investigation of Rorty’s work testifies to that the according to Rorty, once we have given up the idea that stream that made deeper impressions to him is not that the main function of philosophy is to provide of treatises – with the exception of the above mentioned foundations to our practices and institutions, then we The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity – but that of will not necessarily need a philosophical theory of comments on current political situation of Western democracy. That is why he can say without any scruples democracies. If we think of Habermas as a Dewey of the that “Unlike Habermas, I do not think that disciplines like present day, it will explain why is Rorty eager to count philosophy, linguistics and developmental psychology him among that “we” – “we, liberals” – that he often can do much for democratic politics.” 17 refers to. Even if he is a liberal who is unwilling to be an Given that Rorty explicitly denies (1) that there is a ironist. central function of philosophy and it is essentially social, (2) that we are able to justify liberal democracy in an unconditional, universal way, and (3) that in order to understand and to improve democratic politics we need a well articulated philosophical theory of democracy, the main question remains: why does he still insist that Habermas is an exemplary philosopher? I think, the answer lies in the special role that Habermas plays as a public intellectual rather than in his – otherwise very impressive – philosophical work. In his Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature Rorty considers Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Dewey as the three most important nonfoundationalist philosophers. I think, he also recommends them as role-models for philosophers: the later Wittgenstein represents the philosopher as therapist, Heidegger as creative inventor of new, idiosyncratic vocabularies and Dewey as public intellectual. And we might say that among contemporary philosophers the one who is nearest to the Deweyan ideal is obviously Jürgen Habermas. If we are looking for an explicit formulation of this consideration, we will find it in one of Rorty’s papers: “Habermas, almost alone among eminent philosophers of the present day, manages to work as Dewey did, on two tracks. He produces both a stream of philosophical treatises and a stream of comment on current events. I doubt that any philosophy professor since Dewey has 16 17 122 Cf. Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, 189-198. Rorty, „Universality and Truth”, 14. 18 Richard Rorty, „Thugs and Theorists: A Reply to Bernstein”, Political Theory 1987/4., 580, n31. THE ROOTS OF RORTY’S PHILOSOPHY: will suggest that a slight modification to Rorty’s account CATHARINE A. MACKINNON of MacKinnon’s place within feminism can uncover Susan Dieleman middle ground between Rorty’s views and those of his (York University, scd@yorku.ca) critics; grounds which may prove fertile for future investigations into the relationships to be forged between feminism and pragmatism. I will employ the example of sexual harassment, a concept MacKinnon helped introduce into legal discourse, to elucidate the Introduction middle ground I recommend. I will conclude that it is Although Rorty’s introduction to feminist theory came Rorty’s exposure to and engagement with MacKinnon’s about purely by happenstance – he claims to have writing that brings him to deal more explicitly with started reading feminist books simply because his wife political issues and that, even though feminists have not had dozens of them lying around the house – I will been suggest in this paper that his engagement with feminism investigation into his writing is likely to bring to light the resulted in an important shift to a more political version many resources his philosophy has to offer progressive of pragmatism in his later works. Indeed, even though social movements. quick to adopt Rorty’s insights, further Rorty admits to not having “anything special to say about feminism” (Rorty et. al. 2002, 30), a careful 1. Catharine A. MacKinnon reading reveals that feminism seems to have had And now, with MacKinnon is a prominent American feminist legal increasing attention being paid to Rorty’s unique brand theorist who is well-known for her participation in a of neopragmatism by feminists, it is becoming apparent number of important legal projects. that Rorty may have had something special to say to engaged in groundbreaking international work on issues feminism after all. of sex equality. For example, she represented Bosnian something special to say to Rorty. She has been women survivors of Serbian genocidal sexual atrocities in In this paper, I will explore the role Catharine A. a successful lawsuit which provided the first recognition MacKinnon’s work played in Rorty’s interest in feminism that rape is an act of genocide. She is also well-known in the early 1990s, and his consequent turn to more (and possibly notorious) for what are considered to be explicitly political topics in his later writing. In the first her radical views regarding pornography. Along with section, I will provide a brief overview of MacKinnon’s Andrea Dworkin and other feminist activists, MacKinnon projects for readers unfamiliar with her work, paying helped to develop the Antipornography Civil Rights particular attention to her role in the development of Ordinance, a collection of local ordinances intended to the concept of sexual harassment. In the second be used to protect women from the harms of section, I will investigate the aspects of her work that pornography under civil law. MacKinnon is also well make it the type of approach that interests Rorty, and in known for the part she played in bringing to public what ways and for what purposes her work appears in awareness the phenomenon of sexual harassment. and influences his writing. In the third section, I will Although each of these topics is worthy of lengthy 1 2 interrogate how Rorty’s use of MacKinnon impacts the reception of his views by other feminist theorists. That is, I will ask whether and how Rorty’s use of MacKinnon’s perspectives either serves or undermines his attempts to ‘sell’ pragmatism to feminists. In the fourth section, I 1 See Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women’s Equality (1988), and In Harm’s Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings (1997). 2 nd See “Kadic v. Karadzic: Opinion of 2 Circuit re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” at Project Diana: Online Human Rights Archive (At Yale Law School). T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman investigation, I will limit myself here to exploring the organizations that the issue of sexual harassment gained final topic – which serves as an example throughout this popular attention. paper – before investigating how the methodology she employed in pursuing this and other issues led to the It was feminist perspectives in popular culture that led, incorporation of her views and approach in Rorty’s 1990 in large part, to popular acceptance of the concept of Tanner Lecture, “Feminism and Pragmatism.” sexual harassment. The media generally sought women’s personal testimonials, as well as feminist The phenomenon the term “sexual harassment” perspectives on the issue of sexual harassment, which identifies was already a concern in the nineteenth included the idea that it was an issue of power rather century. As Carrie N. Baker points out, social reformers than sexuality. As Baker points out, “These stories raised at this time “first conceptualized sexual coercion in the awareness about the issue, causing more women to workplace as a social problem, but framed it as a moral speak up about harassment, to name the experience as a issue. Reformers were concerned with the moral violation, and to fight it. Women began to question degeneration of women in the workplace, so they coercive sexual behavior in the workplace that they advocated protective labor laws that limited women’s would before have accepted as the status quo” (Baker participation in the workplace to shield them from these 2003, 42). influences” (Baker 2003, 41). During the so-called second sexual harassment appeared in the popular press in the wave of feminism in the 1970s, the problem of sexual mid-1970s. In 1975, Enid Nemy’s article “Women Begin harassment was reconceptualized by feminists, Baker to Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment at Work” suggests, “as a civil rights issue. Concerned with appeared in the New York Times, and Mary Bralove’s “A women’s equal employment opportunities, feminists Cold Shoulder: Career Women Decry Sexual Harassment argued that sexual harassment was sex discrimination” by Bosses and Clients” appeared in the Wall Street (41). In In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution, Susan Journal in 1976. Brownmiller recounts how a group of feminist activists responses to these mainstream treatments of sexual of which she was a part realized there was no term they harassment, yet the term had gained enough currency could use to identify the experiences many women were that women across North America were able to employ having in their workplaces at the hands of their bosses or the concept in describing their own experiences. The first appearances of the concept of There were, of course, critical co-workers. In brainstorming to find a term, many were bandied about until someone came up with “sexual In 1979, MacKinnon published the first major book on harassment.” wanted the topic of sexual harassment, entitled Sexual something that embraced the whole range of subtle and Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex unsubtle persistent behaviors. Somebody came up with Discrimination. “harassment.” Sexual harassment! Instantly we agreed. argument that “sexual harassment of women at work is That’s what it was” (Quoted in Fricker 2007, 150). Some sex discrimination in employment” (4). of the feminist activists in groups like the one MacKinnon employs when presenting sexual harassment Brownmiller describes went on to form Working Women as a form of sex discrimination is a strategy that had United (later to become the Working Women's Institute) already proven successful in feminist attempts to and the Alliance Against Sexual Coercion, both of which reconceptualize the problem of rape. More specifically, were instrumental in bringing sexual harassment to she suggests that sexual harassment is less about sex public attention through the late 1970s. It is largely due than it is about power. She writes, “Rape has recently to the efforts of the women who worked with these been conceptualized as a crime of violence, not sex. Brownmiller writes, “We In that text, she presents the legal The strategy Sexual harassment, so conceptualized, would be an 124 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman abuse of hierarchical economic (or institutional) lying around the house, so I began reading them. If I’d authority, not sexuality” (217-218). In other words, been single, God knows whether I would ever have read MacKinnon argues that sexual harassment is a form of them” (30-31). Marianne Janack, editor of the recent sex discrimination because it is an issue of power; the anthology Feminist Interpretations of Richard Rorty, act of sexual harassment reinforces the social inequality recounts a conversation she had with Rorty’s wife, Mary of women to men, and it does this specifically by Varney Rorty, in which his choice of feminist authors is undermining women’s “potential for work equality as a explained. Janack quotes Mary Rorty: means to social equality” (1979, 216). MacKinnon’s efforts and persistence were, of course, rewarded: in 1980, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) employed MacKinnon's framework in adopting guidelines prohibiting sexual harassment by prohibiting both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment harassment. 2. Rorty’s use of MacKinnon’s work they [Frye and Rich] grabbed you by the brain and imagination and rammed you into something you might not have thought about but sure were gonna think about now. […] [T]hat kind of writing – writing that clears a path for ideas, preferably outrageous ones, to wham into your brain – that was Rorty’s meat. He aspired to it; he recognized it when he saw it; he absolutely respected it. He was glad of an occasion to acknowledge it (Janack 2008, 30). It is this engagement with feminist literature, induced simply by its availability, that prompts Rorty’s writing of In the interview “Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies,” “Feminism and Pragmatism,” originally presented in Rorty is asked to respond to the following observation 1990 as the Tanner Lecture on Human Values at the the interviewer had made of his work: “before you University of Michigan. started talking about the American left in general, you focused pretty specifically on feminism—you’ve written In particular, it is MacKinnon’s methodology – which a number of articles about feminism—and it seems to be involves investigating specific issues in pursuit of or in a politics that you’re particularly attached to” (Rorty et. the context of greater social progress – that draws Rorty al. 2002, 29). Rorty responds: to her work. He sees her as a paradigm of the “moral entrepreneur,” people who (in Rorty’s words) “have a One is always struck when one finds oneself guilty of taking things for granted. I was raised phallogocentric, homophobic, all the rest of it, and it took decades of propaganda to make me realize I’d been raised wrong. […] When you have the sense of your eyes being opened, you tend to write about how nice it is to have your eyes open. That’s why I wrote about feminism. But it isn’t that I think I have anything special to say about feminism (29-30). very specific target, call attention to a very specific set of instances of unnecessary suffering” (Rorty et. al. 2002, 47). These moral entrepreneurs, Rorty argues, ultimately do more good than academic moralists who tend to be universalistic moral philosophers and see their job as providing moral principles to guide action. On Rorty’s view, Rorty became acquainted with the work of feminists – most notably philosopher Marilyn Frye, poet and essayist Adrienne Rich, and the focus of this paper, legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon – because the books were, quite simply, made available to him. In “Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies,” Rorty mentions that he began reading feminist authors because of the influence of his wife. He is quoted as saying, “She began reading more and more feminist books. There were dozens of them Univeralistic moral philosophers think that the notion of ‘violation of human rights’ provides sufficient conceptual resources to explain why some traditional occasions of revulsion really are moral abominations and others only appear to be. They think of moral progress as an increasing ability to see the reality behind the illusions created by superstition, prejudice, and unreflective custom. The typical universalist is a moral realist, someone who thinks that true moral judgments are made true by something out there in the world (Rorty 2010, 22). 125 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman If we adopt a universalistic account of moral progress, that, unsilenced, might say something that has never Rorty suggests, we will simply see MacKinnon’s approach been as “empty hyperbole” rather than as what it really is, MacKinnon’s approach here sits well with Rorty’s and that is “prophecy” (Rorty 2010, 22). linguistic pragmatism, in which linguistic innovation heard” (MacKinnon motivates social progress. in Rorty 2010, 20). According to Rorty, Closer investigation of how MacKinnon understands the MacKinnon is correct to think that “assumptions become context into which the new concept of sexual visible as assumptions only if we can make the harassment is introduced reveals still further reasons for contradictories of those assumptions sound plausible” why Rorty would be interested in her work. In the (Rorty 2010, 21). In other words, only by describing a preface to Sexual Harassment of Working Women, world in which our assumptions are reversed, and by MacKinnon writes, “Sexual harassment has been not making that world sound like it could exist, are we able only legally allowed; it has been legally unthinkable” (xi). to show that the assumptions currently at work are In other words, because the legal concept of sexual nothing but assumptions. harassment had not yet been conceived and introduced, By This means that somebody must be willing to create and presenting sexual harassment as a form of discrimination suggest a description of a different world – a – an issue of power rather than of sex – MacKinnon redescription of our own. Rorty continues, it did not, for all intents and purposes, exist. presented a new description of a phenomenon that the legal world would ultimately acknowledge. This approach sits very well with Rorty’s recommendation to “stop talking about the need to go from distorted to undistorted perception of moral reality, and instead talk about the need to modify our practices so as to take account of new descriptions of what has been going on” (Rorty 2010, 22-23). This, of course, is why Rorty uses Only if somebody has a dream, and a voice to describe that dream, does what looked like nature begin to look like culture, what looked like fate begin to look like a moral abomination. For until then only the language of the oppressor is available, and most oppressors have had the wit to teach the oppressed a language in which the oppressed will sound crazy – even to themselves – if they describe themselves as oppressed (Rorty 2010, 21). MacKinnon as an example of the strategy best suited to Thus, new language must be presented, one which will, attaining social progress. Indeed, given that Rorty as Rorty puts it, “facilitate new reactions” (Rorty 2010, appreciates and admires the approach of the moral 21). He suggests, “by ‘new language’ I mean not just entrepreneur who provides new descriptions of states of new words but also creative misuses of language – affairs to render visible previously invisible assumptions, familiar words used in ways which initially sound crazy. MacKinnon’s work becomes an exemplar of the […] Such popularity [of new descriptions] extends logical pragmatist position he seeks to forward. Her work thus space by making descriptions of situations which used to also prompts his theoretical engagement with feminism. seem crazy seem sane” (Rorty 2010, 21). In this section I will explore the use Rorty makes of MacKinnon’s work and then investigate, in the following Here, a brief reminder of how Rorty thinks social section, whether it plays the role he hoped it would in progress occurs might be helpful. his attempt to ‘woo’ feminists. thinks argumentation on its own is an inadequate tool Recall that Rorty for seeking and attaining social progress. Only a new quotes vocabulary can displace an existing vocabulary, and he MacKinnon’s views on the ascension of women to argues in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity that it is the Minnesota’s Supreme Court: “I’m evoking for women a ironist who creates new vocabularies. role that we have yet to make, in the name of a voice employed by the ironist therefore relies on In 126 “Feminism and Pragmatism,” Rorty The method T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman redescription rather than inference. Ironists specialize in redescribing ranges of objects or events in partially neologistic jargon, in the hope of inciting people to adopt and extend that jargon. An ironist hopes that by the time she has finished using old words in new senses, not to mention introducing brand-new words, people will no longer ask questions phrased in the old words (Rorty 1989, 78). dominant discourse to recognize marginalized groups as members of “we” rather than “they.” As Janack puts it, Rorty argues Feminists should not tie themselves to the old paradigm by playing by its rules of argumentation and evidence, but should take on the challenge of providing a new paradigm, even at the risk of sounding crazy or having their appeals fall on deaf ears. Only by offering a new vision that could replace the old model of patriarchy – a function fulfilled by prophecy, not by philosophy – can feminists make progress (Janack 2008, 33). The ironist, which evolves into the prophet of Rorty’s later work (more on this shortly), is responsible for instigating social progress, Rorty contends, because there are many situations in which argument will simply 3 fail. For example, he contends that irony or prophecy can be a useful ally in the feminist struggle in that it 3. Rorty and feminism offers a strategy for feminists to use when argument fails. And, he proposes, “Argument for the rights of the oppressed will fail just insofar as the only language in which to state relevant premises is one in which the relevant emancipatory premises sound crazy” (Rorty 2010, 24). In other words, because oppressed groups are required to phrase their arguments in the discourse of the oppressor, or in “commonsensical” language, the Pragmatist and feminist projects are often motivated by the same concerns, and these concerns often lead their adherents to the same theoretical and practical conclusions. Thus, an alliance between them seems almost inevitable. Indeed, Veronique Mottier, in “Pragmatism and Feminist Theory,” suggests that there can be found idea of emancipating the oppressed will inevitably sound a natural affinity between key elements of pragmatism and feminist thought. Both privilege social and political practice over abstract theory, they evaluate theory from the point of view of its concrete effects on marginalized groups, including women, and both share a common emphasis upon the development of theory from subjects’ grounded experience. Nevertheless, the history of the relations between pragmatism and feminism is largely one of a failed 4 rendezvous (2004, 323). unreasonable. Indeed, Rorty suggests that naming the language used by oppressed groups in their search for equality as “crazy” or “unreasonable” is an explicit tactic, used by the oppressor, to keep other groups in a subordinate position. Thus, oppressed groups require another strategy to realize their goals of emancipation. This strategy is, of course, persuasion, and more specifically, persuasion designed to arouse sentiments that would lead to greater solidarity; to enable those who populate the 3 It seems that ironic redescription is not the only means by which social progress can be achieved. In Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, Rorty writes “Plain argumentative prose may, depending on circumstances, be equally useful.” (169) Interestingly, this is a bit of a throw-away, as Rorty does not seem to pursue it here, or elsewhere, and maintains his position that metaphor is more useful than “making predictable moves in currently popular language-games.” (169) I assume that, by suggesting “plain argumentative prose” may contribute to social progress, he is thinking of something similar to the type of progress that Kuhn argues is possible within normal science. 4 Mottier chalks this failure up to the lack of a clear political program in neopragmatism, and particularly in Rorty’s work. And, the politics that are at work in Rorty’s philosophy, she argues, rely too heavily on the distinction between the public and private spheres, and on traditional liberalism, with its emphasis on autonomous, rational subjectivity. She writes: “Rorty’s unsophisticated liberalism, which amalgamates a liberalist understanding of the subject as an autonomous individual with a liberal political project, is deeply problematic for feminist theory. Its unreflective a priori separation between public and private spheres and between theory and practice, as well as its failure to take into account the relational dimension of human existence, are at odds with current feminist debates on liberalism.” (331) Unfortunately, Mottier’s piece provides no account of Rorty’s actual position. Therefore, I will not take Mottier’s criticisms further into account because it is not clear how she understands 127 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman While Mottier chalks this failure up to the lack of a clear in his 1989 Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. There, he political program in neopragmatism – an accusation I do suggests social progress occurs through linguistic not deal with here – I suggest that the lack of meaningful innovation, and it is the ironist who envisions and dialogue is more likely both less conscious and more creates a better society through their innovative uses of strategic. That is, it is more ignorance of the language. It is the liberal ironist who creates narratives pragmatists’ work and a desire to avoid an alliance with that can cause a shift in a culture’s final vocabulary. an already much-maligned movement that results in the However, he briefly notes that the books that are so-called “failed rendezvous.” created by the ironist can be divided into two types, those books In any case, a conversation of sorts has developed among feminists about the value of pragmatism for their goals, and between feminists and pragmatists as well, to determine the value of their work for each others’ enterprises. For example, Phyllis Rooney, in “FeministPragmatist Revisionings of Reason, Knowledge, and aimed at working out a new private vocabulary and those aimed at working out a new public vocabulary. The former is a vocabulary deployed to answer questions like “What shall I be?” “What can I become?” “What have I been?” The latter is a vocabulary deployed to answer the question “What sorts of things about what sorts of people do I need to notice? (Rorty 1989, 143). Philosophy,” contends that “a kind of critical dialectical relationship” between pragmatism and feminism can bring out their respective and mutual strengths, which can serve as a starting point for reimagining epistemological concepts (15). Both movements, she claims, developed out of “similar frustrations with what are seen as limiting aspects of “traditional” philosophy” (15). Yet despite these overlapping concerns, interests and projects, few feminists have explicitly taken up the task of pursuing a distinctly pragmatist feminism or a feminist pragmatism. Even fewer still are the feminists And although Rorty does not dismiss the possibility that the former type of book can prompt or contribute to social progress, it is the latter type of book that contributes to social progress by enlarging the scope of solidarity. Yet he continues to assert at this point that the ideal citizen of a liberal utopia will therefore see those responsible for creating social change as individuals who prompt the creation of a new public final vocabulary through the creation of their own private final vocabularies. who have taken up the project of being “banner-wavers” for Rorty. As Rorty is one of the few contemporary philosophers to explicitly engage with feminist theory, this is perhaps surprising. However, exploring the many possible reasons for the “failed rendezvous” between feminism and pragmatism, or even between feminism and Rorty’s work specifically, is surely beyond the scope of this paper. What I will focus on is the conversation that has emerged as a result of Rorty’s use of MacKinnon’s views and his positing of her as a feminist prophet. Interestingly, the distinction that Rorty raises here, between books “aimed at working out a new private vocabulary and those aimed at working out a new public vocabulary,” is not, to my knowledge, mentioned at any other point in his works, although it does seem to be a background assumption in some areas, most notably in his discussion of George Orwell’s dystopian novels However, the distinction made in 1989’s Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity foreshadows the move Rorty makes from irony to prophecy, where the latter type of book is presented by someone Rorty identifies as a prophet It is Rorty’s engagement with feminism, I suggest, that brings to life and clarifies a short but anomalous passage rather than an ironist. Indeed, it is Rorty’s engagement with feminism that prompts him to recast the liberal ironist of Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity as a political Rorty’s work, and what, therefore, she is actually criticizing. 128 actor, and he takes MacKinnon to be just such an actor. That is, it is an understanding of the struggles and T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman successes of feminism that prompts him to engage critically, and democratically, rather than imposed via further with these books aimed at public audiences, prophetic pronouncements from mountaintops” (Fraser where “public” can be variously defined to include the 1991, 266). Thus, while Fraser and Rorty agree on more larger public of a society or culture – something along than they disagree, as Janack puts it, “The question to the lines of his bourgeois leftist intellectuals – or smaller which they give different answers is: how does linguistic counterpublic innovation work to create and sustain political change?” spheres like feminist activist and consciousness-raising groups. (Janack 2008, 34-35). In other words, while both theorists agree that linguistic innovation motivates social However, the move from irony to prophecy, and the use progress, and even though Fraser welcomes Rorty’s of MacKinnon as an example of a feminist prophet, has move from irony to prophecy, she also worries that not received the warmest reception from feminist Rorty’s account is too apolitical. thinkers engaged with Rorty’s work. For instance, the reading under which the development of the term concept of the feminist prophet sits uneasily with Nancy “sexual harassment” did not come about as a result of Fraser, who responds to Rorty’s Tanner Lecture, arguing MacKinnon’s prophetic insights, but rather as a process that a further move to politics is necessary after one has embodied by a counterpublic sphere. Fraser presents a moved from irony to prophecy (Fraser 2010, 54). Fraser is particularly concerned that the picture of the prophet 4. Sexual harrasment offered by Rorty is too individualistic and does not account for the social nature of knowledge production. Although Rorty himself never employs or addresses it She notes moreover that Rorty’s view of the feminist himself, the case of sexual harassment is commonly prophet is simply inaccurate as a description of employed by feminist theorists as an example of the way progressive movements throughout history. Is it the social movements can be successful and moral progress prophet who alters vocabularies by presenting new can be achieved. I will investigate how some feminist metaphors, thereby enabling political transformations, theorists have used the development of the concept she asks, or is it marginalized communities themselves “sexual harassment” in their work to determine whether who are responsible for these changes? Certainly, it has and how Rorty’s use of MacKinnon’s work was accurate not proven to be the case that individual prophets within and appropriate, and to begin to develop a middle feminist circles are solely responsible for social change, ground between Rorty and his critics. Fraser argues. She suggests that important feminist redescriptions have developed through practices of In Inclusion and Democracy, Iris Marion Young seeks to consciousness-raising. develop In fact, Fraser contends that a more inclusive version of political linguistic communication which makes room for alternate innovation not only at the level of the meanings it has discursive styles and methods. Any properly functioning generated, but also at the level of the invention and deliberative democracy, she suggests, must make room institutionalization of a new language game or discursive for these different communicative styles so as to not practice” (Fraser 1991, 266). unfairly exclude anyone from political discourse. Young consciousness-raising presents “a major outlines how the alternative discursive method of Thus, she argues that the counterpublic sphere better narrative specifically was used to develop the concept of represents the feminist movement than does Rorty’s sexual harassment. prophetic characterization. She characterizes the elucidates how story-telling or narrative can introduce feminist counterpublic sphere as “a discursive space new terms into the prevailing normative discourse. where ‘semantic authority’ is constructed collectively, Young writes, In other words, this example 129 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman The account of the development of the term “sexual Before the language and theory of sexual harassment was invented…women usually suffered in silence, without a language or forum in which to make a reasonable complaint. As a result of women telling stories to each other and to wider publics about their treatment by men on the job and the consequences of this treatment, however, a problem that had no name was gradually identified and named (7273). In other words, an accumulation of harassment” is offered by Fricker as an example of the filling of a hermeneutical gap that threatens the experience and credibility of women. Fricker outlines the example at length, using it to elucidate what it means for there to be a gap in the collective hermeneutical resources available to individuals and cognitive dissonances or felt anomalies led women to share between themselves their experiences of what has come to be known as a form of sexual discrimination. The new metaphor developed by and among these women to describe their experiences – “sexual harassment” – was meant to highlight the negative aspects of what up to that point had been thought of as harmless workplace interactions between men and women. metaphor gradually filled in This new what feminist epistemologist Miranda Fricker calls a hermeneutical groups to communicate their experiences. In developing this term, feminists were able to plug the hermeneutical gap that had been affecting them, and make a whole new range of theoretical and activist resources available. Only in some cases will this gap constitute an injustice, however. In a situation of sexual harassment, Fricker explains, “harasser and harassee alike are cognitively handicapped by the hermeneutical lacuna – neither has a proper understanding of how he is treating her – but the harasser’s cognitive disablement is not a significant disadvantage to him. Indeed, there is an obvious sense in which it suits his purpose” (Fricker 2007, 151). And it gap. is this cognitive disablement that renders any specific In Epistemic Injustice, Fricker uses the example to clarify her account of hermeneutical injustice, and the way in which a new term can bring to light experiences that were previously ignored or marginalized because they could not be named. Recall that hermeneutical injustice, according to Fricker, illustrates the following idea: relations of unequal power can skew shared hermeneutical resources so that the powerful tend to have appropriate understandings of their experiences ready to draw on as they make sense of their social experiences, whereas the powerless are more likely to find themselves having some social experiences through a glass darkly, with at best ill-fitting meanings to draw on in the effort to render them intelligible (148). instance of running up against a hermeneutical gap both harmful and wrongful: an injustice. Fricker continues, the harassee’s cognitive disablement is seriously disadvantageous to her. The cognitive disablement prevents her from understanding a significant patch of her own experience: that is, a patch of experience which it is strongly in her interests to understand… Her hermeneutical disadvantage renders her unable to make sense of her ongoing mistreatment, and this in turn prevents her from protesting it, let alone securing effective measures to stop it (Fricker 2007, 151). Fricker also argues that the inability to name such mistreatment is best understood as a hermeneutical injustice because the background social conditions were In other words, because those in power are able to such that the gap was an effect and instrument of determine the collection of hermeneutical resources power, specifically patriarchal power, as women were that constitute a social imaginary, they will rarely find fighting against it in the late 1960s. themselves without the words and phrases needed to communicate their experiences to others. The What makes the case of sexual harassment noteworthy powerless, on the other hand, must make do with the for commentators like Fraser, who oppose Rorty’s social meanings available to them, many of which will be account of MacKinnon’s prophetic voice, is the fact that inadequate this term was not simply presented in literature and thus to the task of interpreting communicating their own experiences. 130 and cannot be traced to its originator. As is the case with T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman most narrative examples of the development of a term replies: “No. I just stole her stuff and wrote it up in a like “sexual harassment,” it is difficult to determine who slightly different form. She hasn’t used me, I’ve used her. is responsible for its origin and thus, Fraser thinks […] She read me before I began writing about feminism, identifying a “prophet” who provides the impetus for but I don’t think it was a big deal for her” (30) However, social progress is inaccurate. Instead, she urges a further I contend there are hints suggesting that not only has move, as is evidenced by the title of her response to MacKinnon influenced Rorty’s work, but that Rorty’s use Rorty, a move not just from irony to prophecy, but from of MacKinnon influenced MacKinnon as well. prophecy to politics as well. Yet positing that it was a while feminist engagement with Rorty’s work has thus group of women who were responsible for developing far been sparse, and made up of, as he notes, more the new concept rather than an individual prophet does attacks than support, there is evidence that his views not in itself explain how such a term could serve to have caught the ears of some feminists – including even overcome (or at least mitigate) the hermeneutical MacKinnon herself. injustice that its lack engenders. Thus, In order to fully overcome such an injustice, the term has to enter into In her 1999 essay “Are Women Human?” republished in the collective hermeneutical resources of a society such the 2006 collection Are Women Human? And Other that it can be called upon by others to explain previously International unexplainable experiences. approach in the terms provided by Rorty in “Feminism Dialogues, and Pragmatism.” MacKinnon frames her Specifically, she writes, “Being a I suggest that, on a Rortyan account, this can be woman is ‘not yet a name for a way of being human,’ not accomplished via argumentation on the part of an even in this most visionary of human rights documents individual or group that could best be described as an [the Universal Declaration of Human Rights]” (1999, 43). advocate. That is, while redescription (also presented as She takes up this specific quote again in her 2007 book “abnormal discourse” by Rorty) is the method by which Women’s Lives; Men’s Laws to invoke the social and we understand possible methods to fill the gap, material conditions that create “woman.” argumentation (or “normal discourse”) facilitates the admonishes us to not “invoke any abstract essence or uptake of such redescriptions. In the case of sexual homogeneous generic or ideal type, not to posit harassment, what were the means by which the term anything, far less anything universal, but to refer to this became a hermeneutical resource upon which others diverse and pervasive concrete material reality of social could draw? Surely MacKinnon played a pivotal role meanings and practices” (2007, 25). She here. And although this role may not have been one of an Certainly, the claim could be made that MacKinnon’s advocate would be a move to a middle ground that rejection of essentialism and universalism is more a would be welcomed by both Rorty and Fraser. result of her feminism than it is a result of her prophecy, perhaps identifying MacKinnon as engagement with Rorty’s work and, in particular, his Conclusion Tanner Lecture. Yet it would certainly be fair, I think, to suggest that Rorty’s characterization of her views in In the interview “Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies,” “Feminism and Pragmatism” captured MacKinnon’s Rorty suggests that, although some feminists had imagination, to the point that she employed the concept offered replies to some of his work, there were none in her own later works. In “Feminism and Pragmatism,” who “picked it up and … waved it as a banner” (30) Rorty employs MacKinnon’s work to make the important When asked whether or not Catharine MacKinnon had move from irony to prophecy. Fraser argues that Rorty indeed played the role of a banner-waver for Rorty, he needs to make the further move from prophecy to 131 T H E R O O T S O F R O R T Y ’ S P H I L O S O P H Y : C A T H A R I N E A . M A C K I N N O N Susan Dieleman politics. I suggest that, understanding MacKinnon’s role highlighting the implicit political nature of Rorty’s views as one of advocacy rather than prophecy finds the that were prompted by his engagement with feminist middle ground between Rorty’s and Fraser’s views, theorists and activists like MacKinnon. References Baker, Carrie N. 2003. “Popular Representations of Sexual Harassment.” In Inness, Sherrie, ed. Disco Divas: Women and Popular Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Fraser, Nancy. 1991. “From Irony to Prophecy to Politics: A Response to Richard Rorty.” Michigan Quarterly Review XXX:2, 259-266. Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power & the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Janack, Marianne, ed. 2010. Feminist Interpretations of Richard Rorty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ----------. 2008. “To Philosophize or Not to Philosophize? Rorty’s Challenge to Feminists” in Ideas Y Valores 138: 29-39. nd “Kadic v. Karadzic: Opinion of 2 Circuit re: Subject Matter Jurisdiction,” at Project Diana: Online Human Rights Archive (At Yale Law School). Retrieved from http://graduateinstitute.ch/faculty/clapham/hr doc/docs/ATCAKaradzic.htm (June 4, 2011). MacKinnon, Catharine A. 2006. Are Women Human? And Other International Dialogues. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. ----------. 1979. Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. New Haven: Yale University Press. ----------. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. ----------. 2007. Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Andrea 132 Dworkin. 1997. In Harm’s Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. ----------. 1988. Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women’s Equality. Minneapolis: Organizing Against Pornography. Mendieta, Eduardo, ed. 2006. Take Care of Freedom and Truth Will Take Care of Itself: Interviews with Richard Rorty. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Mottier, Veronique. 2004. “Pragmatism and Feminist Theory,” in European Journal of Social Theory 7:3, 323-335. Rooney, Phyllis. 1993. “Feminist-Pragmatist Revisionings of Reason, Knowledge, and Philosophy.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 8:2, 15-23. Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ----------. 2010. “Feminism and Pragmatism.” In Janack, Marianne, ed. Feminist Interpretations of Richard Rorty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. ----------. 1991. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ----------. 1998. Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rorty, Richard, Derek Nystrom, and Kent Puckett, eds. 2002. Against Bosses, Against Oligarchies: A Conversation with Richard Rorty. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. RORTY AND BRANDOM: how we understand philosophy and its role in social and PRAGMATISM AND THE ONTOLOGICAL PRIORITY political change: OF THE it is not only an attempt to make philosophy more relevant to democratic politics, but an SOCIAL1 effort to democratize philosophy itself by expanding who Christopher J. Voparil counts as competent audience and conversation partner (Union Institute & University; in “the conversation of mankind” to include previously Chris.Voparil@myunion.edu) excluded groups. 3 Interpreting the appeals of both Brandom and Rorty to In this essay I examine the respective positions of Richard Rorty and Robert Brandom on the ontological priority of the social. While Rorty’s writings since Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature have been peppered with allusions to the work of his gifted student, Brandom’s thought – specifically, his claims about the ontological primacy of the social – play a central role in Rorty’s discussion of “philosophy as cultural politics” in his final collection of philosophical papers. Taking a cue from Philosophy as Cultural Politics, the ontological priority of the social in this light, I argue that while for Rorty recognition of this social dimension is a way of eliminating the epistemological and ontological barriers to expanding the conversation to include previously excluded groups, for Brandom it is a way to solve a philosophical puzzle to yield a “rationalism that is not objectively Cartesian” that makes possible “continuing and extending the classical twentieth-century project of philosophical analysis” in a manner that retains the very barriers Rorty seeks to 4 where Rorty calls on philosophers to see “intervening in cultural politics” as “their principal assignment,” my approach to examining their respective positions heeds his advice that “we look at the relatively specialized and technical debates between contemporary philosophers in light of our hopes for cultural change.” As he describes it, Philosophers should choose sides in those debates with an eye to the possibility of changing the course of the conversation. They should ask themselves whether taking one side rather than another will make any difference to social hopes, programs of action, prophecies of a better future. If it will not, it may not be worth doing. If it will, they should spell out what that 2 difference amounts to. dismantle. For his part, Rorty tended to read Brandom in a way that downplays these differences, assimilating Brandom to his own Deweyan project – misleadingly, in my view – in order to draw distinctions between their shared recognitions of the ontological primacy of the social and the analytic philosophers who resist this move. After examining their respective views of the ontological priority of the social more closely to tease out differences obscured by Rorty’s reading of Brandom, in the second section I take a step back to establish the larger interpretive frame Rorty offers for adjudicating philosophical differences, which as a shorthand we might call, putting democratic politics first. In the final Rorty’s move to locate philosophy within the frame of what he calls “cultural politics” has key implications for 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the workshop on “Neo-Pragmatism, Language, and Culture” held at the University of Oslo in October 2010. My thanks to Arild Pedersen, Henrik Rydenfeld, Bjørn Ramberg, and other participants for their insightful comments. 2 Richard Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 4 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. ix-x. 3 See, for example, Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” in Robert Brandom (ed.), Rorty and His Critics (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2000), pp. 1-30. For a more in-depth treatment of this topic, see Christopher J. Voparil, “Rortyan Intercultural Conversation and the Problem of Speaking for Others,” Contemporary Pragmatism (forthcoming). 4 Robert B. Brandom, Reason in Philosophy: Animating Ideas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), p. 1; Between Saying and Doing: Towards an Analytic Pragmatism (New York: Oxford, 2008), p. 232. RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil section, I take up Brandom’s own attempt to evaluate sense of these new prospects cannot be reconciled with classical pragmatism from the perspective of politics in Brandom’s understanding of Brandom, as opposed to “When Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray.” Despite Rorty’s understanding of Brandom. Rorty’s affirmative use of Brandom, I argue that there here is Brandom’s unwillingness to see his own turn to are key differences between their respective turns to the social ontology as just another move in the game of social that pragmatists should consider. cultural politics. I. Cultural Politics and the Ontological Priority of the In his earliest references to the work of his talented Social student, which appear in Philosophy and the Mirror of A key difference Nature, Rorty calls attention to Brandom's approach to Rorty left us preciously few accounts of the notion of truth from the perspective of a social-practice account of philosophy as cultural politics that is the signal theme of language use. his final collection of papers. This idea is discussed only as well as more recent work in Philosophy as Cultural in a handful of Rorty’s essays and could easily have been Politics, as Rorty turns more explicitly to making overlooked had he not chosen it as the title and discussion of proposals for sociopolitical change a addressed it explicitly in the two-page preface. What is central topic of philosophical concern, the primary focus striking about the few discussions we have is not only of his appeal to Brandom is the idea of "the ontological that Brandom is central to them all but that Rorty treats priority of the social." Brandom affirmatively in all of them. 5 8 Then in essays of the 1980s and 1990s, 9 Nevertheless, I argue that this apparent agreement is the result of The claim I want to make here about Rorty and Brandom Rorty’s strategy of reading Brandom into his own is twofold. Not only is Brandom's thinking around the Deweyan project to claim him as an ally against analytic ontological priority of the social central to the philosophers less congenial toward his approach, like understanding of "cultural politics" that emerges in John McDowell, Michael Dummett, Michael Williams, Rorty’s final volume of papers, but this use of Brandom 6 While Rorty sees Brandom, along with is generated through a Deweyan reading of Brandom's Donald Davidson, as opening up “wonderful new project that ultimately conceals important areas of and others. 7 philosophical prospects,” my claim is that Rorty’s own disagreement between Rorty and Brandom that I will argue amount to differences that make a difference if 5 Apart from the Preface and lead essay of Philosophy as Cultural Politics, “Cultural Politics and the Question of the Existence of God,” the idea only receives a few paragraphs of attention in the entire volume. “Some American Uses of Hegel,” from the same period as “Cultural Politics and the Question of the Existence of God” – roughly 2001-2003, marks the only other extended treatment. Although cultural politics is not mentioned explicitly, a precursor essay, especially for its focus on Brandom, is “What Do You Do When They Call You a ‘Relativist’,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 17, no. 1 (1997): 173-177. Also important is “Universality and Truth,” in Rorty and His Critics. While Rorty does not use the term ‘cultural politics’ here, referring instead to “democratic politics,” all of the relevant themes and concerns are present. 6 See Rorty, “The Very Idea of Human Answerability to the World” and “Antiskeptical Weapons” in Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 3 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998). 7 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 142. 134 interpreted from the vantage of Rorty's attention to spurring sociopolitical change. 8 The early paper of Brandom's that Rorty cites most frequently in this period is "Truth and Assertibility," The Journal of Philosophy 73, no. 6 (1976): 137-149. 9 See for example “Representation, Social Practise, and Truth” in Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); "Robert Brandom on Social Practices and Representations" in Truth and Progress; and "Cultural Politics and the Existence of God" in Philosophy as Cultural Politics. Prior to the publication of Brandom's Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), the essay Rorty draws on is Brandom, "Heidegger's Categories in Being and Time," The Monist 66, no. 3 (1983): 387-409. RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil On Rorty's reading, the use underscored by Brandom the advantages of his social practice approach to that Heidegger makes of Hegel's category of the social linguistic communities. Rorty has conceded elsewhere results in a tripartite view of culture. He glosses that Brandom has not attempted to answer questions Brandom as distinguishing a realm where the individual's about whether his approach makes a difference authority is supreme (first-person reports of subjective practically speaking over non-pragmatic accounts. states), a second realm where the non-human realm is Rorty tends to read Brandom through Dewey and supreme (the results of science), and a third realm assimilate him to a pragmatist political project justified where the social predominates. In this third realm, as by its ability to make us responsible to "larger and more Brandom puts it, “all matters of authority or privilege, in diverse communities of human beings." 13 Yet 14 particular epistemic authority, are matters of social 10 practice, and not objective matters of fact.” My aim here is to examine whether there is a difference that makes a difference between their respective Central to the interest of both Brandom and Rorty in the accounts of the ontological priority of the social. For his ontological priority of the social, then, is the issue of part, Brandom takes himself, as he explains in Between epistemic authority. For Rorty, Brandom's third realm Saying and Doing, to be engaged in the work of can be understood as "the arena of cultural politics." “continuing and extending the classical twentieth- By this Rorty means a sphere in which no authority other century project of philosophical analysis” and, for than that of society over itself, including "God, or Truth, reasons we shall see, wants nothing to do with Rorty’s or Reality," can trump the fruits of democratic attempt to put philosophical pragmatism in the service consensus. 11 Brandom's understanding of our of democratic politics. 15 The easiest way to see this is to inferentially articulated normative commitments making get beyond Brandom’s initial turn to the social to us responsible to others offers what Rorty takes to be a examine the nature of his systematic account of it. sociological account of authority that locates authority firmly within the human, social realm. On Rorty’s view, Briefly stated, Brandom uses the ontological primary of Brandom is "articulating a cultural-political stance by the social to retain some of the very philosophical pointing to the social advantages of his account of categories that Rorty seeks to jettison to pave the way authority." for cultural politics. From Hegel Brandom gets the idea For Rorty, any attempts "to name an authority which is superior to that of society are that disguised moves in the game of cultural politics." Even committed and being responsible, must be understood though Rorty himself argues that "cultural politics should as "social achievements." As he explains in a key essay replace ontology," he understands this very move itself on Hegel, "the core idea structuring Hegel's social to be "a matter of cultural politics." 12 "normative statuses," which include being understanding of selves is that they are synthesized by mutual recognition." Inherent in this process is a kind of The problem with this reading is that it is not evident 13 that Brandom takes himself to be offering an account of 10 Brandom, "Heidegger's Categories," pp. 389-90; qtd. in Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 7. 11 For more on this topic see Rorty, “Pragmatism as Antiauthoritarianism,” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 53, no. 207 (1999): 7-20; and “Analytic and Conversational Philosophy” and “A Pragmatist View of Contemporary Analytic Philosophy” in Philosophy as Cultural Politics. 12 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, pp. 8, 5. See Rorty, "Some American Uses of Hegel," p. 45. Ibid, p. 46. This essay marks Rorty's most obvious effort to assimilate Brandom to a Deweyan project. 15 Brandom, Between Saying and Doing, p. 231. Brandom notes in the Afterword that upon reading the lectures published in this book, Rorty asked, “Why in the world would you want to extend the death throes of analytic philosophy by another decade or two?,” p. 202. Brandom’s most explicit treatment of the relation of pragmatism and democratic politics comes in “When Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray: Irony and the Pragmatist Enlightenment,” boundary 2 29, no. 2 (2002): 1-28. 14 135 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil authority: as Brandom puts it, "the authority to Brandom's account of objectivity grants the structure, constitute a community by recognizing individuals as though not the content, of our inferentially articulated members of it." 16 commitments the status of a non-human constraint on us. Brandom wants to retain this distinction, but only as While the ontological origins of this authority are indeed a matter of “perspectival form, rather than in a social, in the sense that there are no transcendental nonperspectival or cross-perspectival content.” appeals to anything outside of the community, for continues, “What is shared by all discursive perspectives Brandom this fact does not mean an embrace of cultural is that there is a difference between what is objectively politics, in Rorty's full sense. That is, even though it may correct in the way of concept application and what is be the case, as Rorty puts it, that "to say that cultural merely taken to be so, not what it is—the structure, not politics has the last word on these matters" means there the content.” He 20 can be "no court of appeal other than our descendants," Brandom does not seek to replace ontology with cultural When considered more closely, Brandom's novel politics. Nor does he seek to make the communities we account of this objective status in Making It Explicit constitute more inclusive. The pragmatist account of the undermines Rorty's attempt to assimilate Brandom to a social nature of authority he derives from Heidegger is Deweyan – or better, a Rortyan – project of "interpreting self-adjudicating, which means not only that it entails increasing rationality as responsibility to larger and more fundamental ontology, something Rorty counsels us to diverse communities of human beings." abandon, but that it contains an implicit normative "Part of playing the game of giving and asking for 17 reasons is keeping track of the commitments and Providing an account of this status is one of Brandom’s entitlements of the other players, by attributing great achievements. commitments and entitlements." standard of correctness that carries objective status. 22 21 For Brandom, This keeping track of commitments is the process Brandom calls “deontic The contrast that exists between Rorty and Brandom can scorekeeping,” which is fundamentally a social process be illustrated through their accounts of the idea of since the content of any utterance is intersubjectively answerability. As John McDowell has pointed out, Rorty determined – not through an “I-we” dynamic, which draws threatens to allow communal perspectives to trump a distinction between "making ourselves answerable to the world, as opposed to being 18 individual ones, but an “I-thou” relation. Thus, "the While Rorty sides squarely broadly inferential content that A associates with B's with the latter and suggests that Brandom's "construal claim determines the significance B's assertional speech of assertions as the assumption of responsibilities to act has from the point of view of A's scorekeeping." answerable to our fellows." other members of society" 19 is consistent with this, 23 Importantly, for Brandom this “social metaphysics of claim-making” “does not settle which claims are true— 16 Brandom, “Some Pragmatist Themes in Hegel’s Idealism: Negotiation and Administration in Hegel’s Account of the Structure and Content of Conceptual Norms,” European Journal of Philosophy 7, no. 2 (1999): 164-189. This essay appears as chapter 7 of Brandom’s Tales of the Mighty Dead: Historical Essays in the Metaphysics of Intentionality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), pp. 210-234. 17 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, pp. 14, 17; Brandom, "Heidegger's Categories," pp. 389-90. 18 John McDowell, “Towards Rehabilitating Objectivity,” in Brandom (ed.), Rorty and His Critics, pp. 110; Rorty, “Response to McDowell,” op. cit., p. 125. 19 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 7. 136 that is, correctly taken to be true.” “There is no bird’s eye view,” Brandom tells us, “above the fray of competing claims from which those that deserve to prevail can be identified.” 20 24 Brandom, Making It Explicit, p. 600. Rorty, "Some American Uses of Hegel," p. 46. 22 Brandom, Making It Explicit, p. 185. 23 Ibid, pp. 601, 191. 24 Ibid, p. 601. 21 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil Nevertheless, always implicit in this scorekeeping – depending upon the presence or absence of sufficient process is the difference between “what is correct and overlap in belief and desire.” In other words, if you are 25 what is merely taken to be correct.” This distinction is not “one of us,” then “I have no reason to justify my precisely what Rorty takes issue with. As he puts it, “If A beliefs to you, and none in finding out what alternative can explain what she is doing and why she is doing it in beliefs you may have.” Put another way, in our talk of her own terms, what right has B got to keep on saying justification and entitlement there always is, at least ‘No, what A is really doing is. . .’ ?” 26 As always, the basis for Rorty’s objection here is not solely epistemological or implicitly, a category of “people whose requests for justification we are entitled to reject.” 30 ontological, but political. In his response to Brandom in Rorty and His Critics, Rorty explicitly reminds us of the II. Putting Democratic Politics First “evil consequences” of “attempts to divide culture into […] the ‘objective knowledge’ part and the other part.” For his part, Brandom does not take up worries about Attempting to retain this distinction, on Rorty’s view, whether practices of deontic scorekeeping may result in runs the risk of providing greater weapons for “the bad exclusion of particular groups or seem interested in guys” – namely, those who do not agree that “increased examining the consequences of his philosophical freedom and richness of the Conversation is the aim of perspective from the vantage of democratic politics at inquiry, but instead think that there is the further aim of all. In the final section I will consider the one place getting where he does do this. Yet it is not clear that he Reality “authoritarians.” right” – whom Rorty calls 27 necessarily should either. In this section I take a step back to articulate what I take to be the fundamental Rorty identifies a second problem with Brandom’s model challenge presented by Rorty’s thought and suggest that of deontic scorekeeping as a mechanism for ensuring we this challenge, which has to do with how we understand always have recourse to the distinction between “what the relation of philosophy and politics. Despite the fact is (objectively) true and what is merely (subjectively) that this challenge is more explicit in Rorty’s 28 Because, as Brandom holds, "Treating engagements with analytic philosophers than anywhere someone as a reliable reporter is taking the reporter's else, it is they who have most often failed to appreciate commitment (to this content under these circumstances) the brunt of his challenge, though they certainly are not to be sufficient for the reporter's entitlement to that along in this. commitment," for Rorty “everything depends upon what will help bring the differences between Rorty and held true.” constitutes a competent audience.” 29 As Rorty explains, 31 Attending to this challenge more closely Brandom into view. “Not any language-user who comes down the road will be treated as a member of a competent audience. On One way to get purchase on this challenge is suggested the contrary, human beings usually divide up into by Brandom in his insightful introduction to Rorty and mutually intelligible) His Critics. Brandom offers a useful distinction between, communities of justification – mutually exclusive groups on the one hand, the “metaphilosophical issues of grand suspicious (not mutually strategy and world historical significance” that constitute 25 Ibid. Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” in Rorty and His Critics, p. 10. Rorty makes this statement with both “metaphysicians” and “fellow Peircians” in mind, but it could apply to Brandom equally well. 27 Rorty, “Response to Brandom,” pp. 186-7. 28 Brandom, Making It Explicit, p. 598. 29 Brandom, Making It Explicit, p. 189; Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” p. 9. the “larger frame in which Rorty has put the questions 26 30 Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” pp. 15, 27n24. For a good account of how often Rorty’s philosophical critics use concepts and assumptions that he has explicitly abandoned against him, see Alan Malachowski, Richard Rorty (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), esp. chapter 6. 31 137 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil that he asks and the claims that he makes,” and, on the metaphilosophical insights to a political context, other, what is of greater interest to more analytically culminating in his idea of “philosophy as cultural minded philosophers: the “argumentative core of his politics.” Simply put, his challenge is that there is no way systematic philosophical vision” – that is, his treatment to get outside of “cultural politics.” Absent privileged 32 Indeed, many of the contexts and mutually-accepted criteria, all we can do is disagreements and debates that play out in the pages of redescribe things and compare one redescription to the volume involve a subtle, and sometimes not so another, and evaluate “alternative […] proposals for subtle, interplay between these two dimensions, with political change” not in terms of “categories and contributors evaluating dimensions of Rorty’s systematic principles” but in terms of “concrete advantages and philosophical vision, usually finding them wanting, and disadvantages.” Rorty trying in his responses, often unsuccessfully, to broader orientation that results comes, fittingly, in “The bring the focus back to this larger frame. Priority of Democracy to Philosophy”: “putting politics of truth, objectivity, and reality. 34 Rorty’s starkest statement of the first and tailoring a philosophy to suit.” 35 The problem is that focusing solely on the systematic content of Rorty’s philosophical positions, in isolation So "how do we tell when, if ever," Rorty asks, "an issue from his larger “world historical” frame, as Brandom about what exists should be discussed without reference calls it, runs the risk of missing his point in a to our sociopolitical goals?" Well, William James, for fundamental way. That is, to evaluate Rorty’s one, Rorty believed, often comes close to saying that “all philosophical stances from within the discourse of questions, including questions about what exists, boil analytic philosophy as simply one systematic theory down to questions about what will help create a better among others to be judged on the basis of standard world." On this view, when we approach philosophical categories fails to come to terms with the basic questions about truth and reality, "arguments about challenge generated by his thought. In his earliest work, relative dangers and benefits are the only ones that Rorty of matter." For Rorty, in a stance he attributes to James, of "truth and reality exist for the sake of social practices, presuppositionless starting points; the absence of rather than vice versa." The fundamental insight that mutually agreed upon, neutral criteria to resolve shapes his understanding of philosophy as cultural disagreements; and the role of what he refers to in his politics is the fact that cultural politics “is the only game early terms in town.” That is, there is no getting outside of this “redescription” – namely, the way “each system can and cultural-political realm to some non-social space. does create its own private metaphilosophical criteria, Recourses to metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc. designed to authenticate itself and disallow its that attempt “to name an authority which is superior to articulated metaphilosophical essays competitors.” challenge stances: as 33 this “redefinition” via the and a set lack later In his later work, he transfers these 36 that of society,” he holds, are nothing more than “disguised moves in the game of cultural politics.” 37 32 Brandom (ed.), Rorty and His Critics, p. xix. Rorty, “The Limits of Reductionism,” in I.C. Lieb (ed.), Experience, Existence, and the Good (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1961), p. 110. See also Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 1-39; and early essays like, “Recent Metaphilosophy,” Review of Metaphysics 15, no. 2 (1961): 299-318; and “Realism, Categories, and the ‘Linguistic Turn’,” International Philosophical Quarterly 2, no. 2 (1962): 307-322. For a more in-depth account of this challenge, see Christopher J. Voparil and Richard J. Bernstein (eds.), 33 138 The Rorty Reader (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 152. 34 Rorty, Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays, 19721980 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), pp. 161, 168. 35 Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, p. 178. 36 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, pp. 4-5. 37 Ibid,, pp. 6-7, 9. RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil Rather than attempt to beat cultural politics, Rorty in his political thought.” later work counsels philosophers to join the game and pragmatists to provide a “public critical assessment” of use philosophy to spur social change and advance racial prejudice in the post-Civil War period in America, 38 Citing the failure of the classical Obviously, this tack is he offers a damning critique of the pragmatist what most gives analytic philosophers pause. Therefore, philosophical orientation on the basis of the undesirable it should come as no surprise that it is within his politics that results. particular “sociopolitical goals.” 42 exchanges with analytic philosophers that Rorty makes the strongest case for the problem of trading “cultural 39 What I want to argue is that it is precisely Rorty’s By this he means attention to such excluded groups – his posing of the not only the problem of preoccupation with questions question, “Whose justificatory context?” – that makes only of interest to professional philosophers, but also his account of the ontological priority of the social, writing about philosophical issues as if we can do so in a despite Brandom’s critique, more useful to pragmatists way that transcends politics. Indeed, he went as far as committed to democratic politics. to claim that the “only serious philosophical questions Brandom uses this episode as a way to reiterate his are about how human beings can find descriptions of commitment to the 20 century project of philosophical both nature and culture that will facilitate various social analysis as means to save us from the shortcomings of significance for professional rigor.” projects.” 40 43 By contrast, th classical pragmatism. Here it is less that Brandom’s commitment to democratic politics is lacking, than his III. The Political Consequences of Fallibilism unwillingness to see philosophy as already embedded within the game of cultural politics keeps him from fully In this final section I want to affirm Rorty’s approach to realizing that commitment. the ontological priority of the social by identifying three 41 Because he The first advantage of Rorty’s account is that it attends locates this idea in the context of his attempt to put more directly to challenges or contestations of the democratic politics first and tailor a philosophy to suit, it implicit normative dimension of our practices by becomes an opportunity to reflect on and address the recognizing the existence of those who fall outside of social and political implications of our concepts and this discursive space – namely, those whom we fail to assumptions, including an opportunity to be more consider “conversation partners.” Indeed, a principal inclusive of previously marginalized groups. If Rorty’s dimension of Rorty’s political project over the last two stance seems too reductionist in its approach to decades of his life was expanding the range of people we philosophical questions as political questions, consider regard as “possible conversation partners.” that Brandom takes this tack himself in his essay “When recognize and do justice to marginalized groups is a key Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray.” In a rare extended dimension of Rorty’s political project; as we have seen, engagement with issues grounded in a specific social and the aim of cultural politics is changing the conversation particular advantages of his account. 44 How to historical context, Brandom provides an account of how to “assess the political consequences of pragmatist 38 Ibid,, p. 3. Rorty, Truth and Progress, p. 151. See also Rorty's various responses in Rorty and His Critics. 40 Rorty, “Some American Uses of Hegel,” p. 41. 41 Although I can’t develop this claim here, the implications are that Rorty’s understanding has more in common with Hegel’s category of the social than Brandom’s. 39 42 Brandom, “When Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray,” pp. 27-28. 43 Rorty, “Response to Jurgen Habermas,” in Rorty and His Critics, p. 58. 44 Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, p. 203. See also in the same volume “Solidarity or Objectivity?” where he establishes that “For pragmatists, the desire for objectivity is not the desire to escape the limitations of one’s community, but simply the desire for as much intersubjective agreement as possible, the desire to extend the reference of ‘us’ as far as we can,” p. 23. 139 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil to make it more inclusive. By “practicing cultural could not count as the general form of any such 49 Or, to put it in Rorty’s terms, attempts politics,” which involves “suggesting changes in the uses contestation.” of words” and “putting new words in circulation” so as “to name an authority which is superior to that of to “break through impasses and to make conversation society” are nothing more than “disguised moves in the more fruitful,” we can enlarge “our repertoire of game of cultural politics.” 50 individual and cultural self-descriptions” to make them 45 For Rorty, it is important that On one level, Brandom’s embrace of the ontological we “stay on the lookout for marginalized people – priority of the social does not seek to name an authority people whom we still instinctively think of as ‘they’ superior to that of society itself. as inclusive as possible. rather than ‘us’.” 46 Brandom makes important moves that get analytic pragmatism beyond representationalism, universal validity, and what he has Rorty’s point here – that “None of us take all audiences seriously; we all reject requests for justification from some audiences as a waste of time” 47 called the “pretensions” concerning the “authoritativeness” of certain forms of theorizing. 51 As – raises the we have seen, Brandom’s account is designed quite question of how it is possible on Brandom’s account to explicitly to preclude the possibility of the content of any challenge one perspective being privileged in advance. the results of scorekeeping practices. Although I cannot adequately engage Brandom’s nuanced and insightful reading of Hegel here, Robert Yet because this stance is a response to a philosophical Pippin has argued compellingly that there is a sense of problem, rather than to a politics of justice that contestation or challenge in Hegel’s account that is demands greater inclusion of marginalized groups, there absent in Brandom’s. remain too many issues relevant to the social itself in On Pippin’s view, Brandom’s 52 What makes this perspective “does not yet explain how either an external which Brandom seems uninterested. interpreter or internal participant can properly challenge significant is the explicit turn to “politico-moral virtues” the authority of the norms on the basis of which the that Rorty believes is required to make the logical space attributions and assessments are made, or how those for moral deliberation more inclusive of those norms can fail to meet those challenges.” 48 More perspectives we may feel justified in rejecting. 53 This specifically, Brandom’s notion of ongoing negotiations appeal to moral virtues, like that of curiosity and an between individuals and scorekeepers falls short of the embrace of fallibilism, is the second advantage I wish to more robust contestation affirmed by Hegel. Like Rorty, underscore. Again, for Rorty “everything depends on Pippin identifies as problematic the assumption that what constitutes a competent audience.” He reminds us there is a “neutral” conception of negotiation to which of “the sad fact that many previous communities have both parties would accede. In keeping with Rorty’s betrayed their own interests by being too sure of understanding of cultural politics, for Pippin, most of the themselves, and so failing to attend to objections raised time “the nature of normative authority is itself up for by outsiders.” grabs.” politics and fallibilism, he highlights the importance of Any attempt to fix that authority, including Drawing a link between democratic Brandom’s scorekeeping of normative entitlements, should “count as an episode in that contestation, and 45 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 124. Rorty, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 196. 47 Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” p. 27n24. 48 Robert Pippin, “Brandom’s Hegel,” European Journal of Philosophy 13, no. 3 (2005), pp. 392, 398. 46 140 49 Ibid, p. 401. Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 9. 51 See Italo Testa, “Hegelian Pragmatism and Social Emancipation: Interview with Robert Brandom,” Constellations 10, no. 4 (2003), p. 561. 52 Pippin identifies such a gap or lacuna “that Brandom obviously feels comfortable leaving unfilled.” See “Brandom’s Hegel,” p. 394 and passim. 53 Rorty, “What Do You Do When They Call You a Relativist?,” p. 176. 50 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil “People who are brought up to bethink themselves that The way in which Rorty’s affirmation of the priority of they might be mistaken: that there are people out there the social expands the discursive space beyond the West who whose has not gone unnoticed. Nigerian philosopher Amaechi disagreements need to be taken into account.” As a Udefi has argued that “Rorty’s anti-foundationalist, anti- result, in Rorty’s view philosophy should concern itself essentialist and most fundamentally with the question of “how to knowledge, truth, and rationality” makes possible “an persuade people to broaden the size of the audience escalation of horizons for other discourses to sprout.” they take to be competent, to increase the size of the One such discourse, according to Udefi, is African might disagree with them, relevant community of justification.” and 54 epistemology. 57 pragmatist view of justification, If we accept, in Brandom’s words, that “all matters of authority or privilege, in particular One of the ways Rorty illustrates the difference that epistemic authority, are matters of social practice, and makes a difference here is via the distinction between not matters of objective fact,” then, to take just one the view “You cannot use language without invoking a example, we must consider Udefi’s point that “if the consensus within a community of other language-users” community is the source of epistemic authority and and “You cannot use language consistently without rationality, as Rorty has submitted, then, it makes sense enlarging that community to include all users of to talk of African epistemology because Africans have language.” With respect to Brandom, an ontology of their own way of conceptualizing events or reality.” deontic scorekeeping, even if social, cannot get us from Judged from the perspective of democratic politics, using the former to the latter. Rather, what is needed on appeals to ontology to undermine this vantage in favor Rorty’s view is a moral virtue like curiosity. 55 Things like “curiosity,” “the urge to expand one’s horizons of 58 of what ought to be believed or what they really mean, seems problematic. inquiry,” and “being interested in what people believe, not because we want to measure their beliefs against The third advantage I want to underscore is Rorty’s what they purport to represent, but because we want to understanding of the need to give up the hope that deal with these people,” for Rorty are necessary to move philosophy can somehow stand above politics. On his the conversation beyond the West and make it a view, when it comes to concepts like truth, rationality, conversation and maturity, “The only thing that matters is which way that engages excluded voices. Philosophical categories alone cannot accomplish this. 56 of reshaping them will, in the long run, make them more useful for democratic politics.” 54 Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” pp. 4-5, 9. As Rorty continues, “The more curiosity you have, the more interest you will have in talking to foreigners, infidels, and anybody else who claims to know something you do not know, to have some ideas you have not yet had,” ibid, p. 17. 56 Rorty, “Robert Brandom on Social Practices and Representations,” in Truth and Progress, p. 129. In his response to Habermas in Rorty and His Critics, he puts this in terms of “fallibility” – “our sense of the desirability of comparing one’s habits of actions with those of others in order to see whether one might develop some new habits,” p. 57. Rorty is especially attuned to the way in which community is constituted through exclusion, and to what he calls the “borderline cases” – individuals or groups that we exclude from “true humanity.” In “The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy” he treats what he calls “enemies of liberal democracy,” like Nietzsche and Loyola, who are deemed “crazy” or “mad” because “the limits of sanity are set by 55 59 Brandom accounts for what he identifies as the failure of the classical pragmatists to challenge biological justifications of what we can take seriously,” Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth, pp. 187-8. “Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality” deals with victims of ethnic cleansing and “Feminism and Pragmatism” takes up marginalized and oppressed groups (both essays are in Truth and Progress). 57 Amaechi Udefi, “Rorty’s Neopragmatism and the Imperative of the Discourse of African Epistemology,” Human Affairs 19 (2009), p. 84. 58 For his part, Rorty has stated: “I think that the rhetoric we Westerners use in trying to get everyone to be more like us would be improved if we were more frankly ethnocentric, and less professedly universalist,” Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 55. 59 Rorty, “Universality and Truth,” pp. 23, 25. 141 RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil 64 racism and the resulting softening of their principled hatred.” opposition to slavery as a case where “politics may have the contrary, is how philosophical guarantees of trumped philosophy.” 60 What Rorty’s account calls attention to, on In other words, fallibilism and objectivity and correctness have functioned more to their embrace of democratic politics over abstract perpetuate injustice and exclusion than to counteract it. philosophical commitments did them in. So the very Politics will always trump philosophy. Unless we follow philosophical orientation that Udefi affirms as opening Rorty’s advice and become willing to trade in the door to a more just, more inclusive, and more “professional rigor” for cultural and political significance, tolerant set of practices is for Brandom the cause of and to intervene in cultural politics by “look[ing] at pragmatism’s failure to promote justice. The idea that relatively specialized and technical debates between “flexibility and experimentation are the essence of contemporary philosophers in light of our hopes for rationality, not the discovery of truths or principles one cultural change,” “choos[ing] sides in those debates with can hold on to,” in Brandom’s view, deprives us of a an eye to the possibility of changing the course of the basis for judging what views “we ought to endorse.” As conversation,” philosophy will be irrelevant to, and have a result, lacking philosophical warrant that would justify no role in, cultural change. appeal to “abstract principles of justice” rather than just “discussion among citizens of differing opinions” as “the While we might want to agree that the classical only way to settle disputes” – basically what Rorty calls pragmatists could have done more to challenge the “cultural politics” – Brandom holds, the pragmatists’ discursive constellations marshaled to justify racial opposition to racism was traded in for a weak hierarchies, the notion that greater clarity in our 61 Brandom’s remedy for philosophical concepts would have saved them or will this shortcoming is an appeal to more recent work in save us from such shortcomings seems wrongheaded, philosophical semantics, which he takes to have yielded especially given our awareness of the kinds of “evil with greater clarity “criteria of adequacy” that would consequences” to which Rorty has called attention. help us identify the weaknesses of the classical Rather than reading their efforts as a failure to “apply pragmatists’ philosophical assumptions, as well as to their theories of the contents of concepts to offer a redouble the “appropriate application of abstract public critical assessment,” we might instead work to principles of justice” to countermand their political better their attempt to abandon a dichotomy of theory accommodationist meliorism. failings. 62 and practice to engage the norms inherent in our democratic practices that, in Brandom’s terms, tended Leaving aside other weaknesses of this account, one toward fanaticism rather than fallibilism, and enter the might observe here that Brandom seems to cling to what fray of cultural politics ourselves. over three decades ago Rorty called the hope of the In conclusion, for Brandom, the ontological priority of 63 65 What he meant by this is “the hope the social is just that: an ontology. By contrast, for that by forming the right conceptions of reason, of Rorty it marks an opportunity to reconceive philosophy science, of thought, of knowledge, of morality […] we so that its priority becomes improving our social Enlightenment. shall have a shield against irrationalist resentment and 64 60 Brandom, “When Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray,” p. 27 61 Ibid, pp. 27-28. 62 Ibid, pp. 19, 27. 63 For example, Brandom concedes that Dewey was the sole exception to this critique and builds his case against classical pragmatism on the positions of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. See ibid, pp. 27-28. 142 Rorty, “Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism,” in Consequences of Pragmatism, p. 171. 65 Brandom, “When Philosophy Paints Its Blue on Gray,” pp. 27, 14. For a rich account of Hegel’s arguments as the means by which “philosophy burst out of the confines of academic theory and became a commentary on the history of the world,” see Susan Buck-Morss, “Hegel and Haiti,” Critical Inquiry 26, no. 4 (Summer 2000): 821-865. RORTY AND BRANDOM: P R A G M A T I S M A N D T H E O N T O L O G I C A L P R I O R I T Y O F T H E S O C I A L Christopher J. Voparil practices to make them more tolerant, more open, and more just. Undoubtedly, there will be failures in this endeavor, from which we must learn, rather than convince ourselves in advance we shall avoid. As we have seen, Rorty’s account of the ontological priority of the social amounts to a replacement of ontology by “cultural politics.” On this view, the implication of recognizing the ontological priority of the social is to replace ontology altogether; for Rorty this is the only way to ensure that no perspectives or conversation partners will be ruled out for reasons other than pragmatic considerations about how far they advance our sociopolitical goals. Whether Brandom will make this a priority remains to be seen. At the end of the day, how we judge the differences between Rorty’s and Brandom’s accounts of the ontological priority of the social is itself a question of cultural politics. There are no philosophical moves that are not moves in the game of cultural politics. If one believes that the point of reading and writing philosophy is to create a better future, then this seems like all the ontology one needs. 66 66 Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, p. 169. 143 WHITE PHILOSOPHY IN/OF AMERICA statesmen of American philosophy—Rorty died in 2007 Michael A. Peters and Cavell is now in his early 80s—from the point of (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, mpet001@illinois.edu) view of the majority of their colleagues were considered rebels or renegades—Rorty perhaps more overtly than Cavell. Each of them spent their careers framing Philosophy occupies an important place in culture only when things seem to be falling apart—when long-held and widely cherished beliefs are threatened. At such periods, intellectuals reinterpret the past in terms of an imagined future. --Richard Rorty, ‘Grandeur, profundity, and finitude’, Philosophy as Cultural Politics, 2007, p.73 questions about the nature of philosophy and the 'directions' it should take after Wittgenstein. Each has continued to ask or elaborate broad metaphilosophical questions about the relation of analytic philosophy both to Continental philosophy and to culture more generally. Each consciously sought to reference their work in relation to the idea and contemporary experience of Keep in mind that I come from that part of the world for which the question of old and new— call it the question of a human future—is, or was, logically speaking, a matter of life and death: if the new world is not new then American does not exist, it is merely one more outpost of old oppressions. --Stanley Cavell, ‘The Future of Possibility’, In Philosophical Romanticism, edited by Nikolas Kompridis, 2006, p. 21 ‘America’. There is a widespread disenchantment with the traditional image of philosophy as a transcendental mode of inquiry … mindful of the dead ends of analytical modes of philosophizing it is yet unwilling to move into the frightening wilderness of pragmatism and historicism with their concomitant concerns in social theory, cultural criticism, and historiography. --Cornel West, The American Evasion of Philosophy, 1989, p. 3 on America. Cavell (1969), by contrast, first explored the Rorty (1979) in his ground-breaking Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature positioned himself in close proximity to Wittgenstein, Heidegger and Dewey as he sought to rework and to redefine the tradition of American pragmatism. Dewey came to eclipse both Wittgenstein and Heidegger in his thought as he developed social and political themes in his reflections significance of Wittgenstein thought in Must We Mean What We Say? before returning to the transcendentalists, to Emerson and Thoreau, to reinvent the origins of American philosophy and explore their contemporary relevance while also exploring the nuances of ordinary language philosophy after Wittgenstein and Austin. Each initiated and refined a distinctive style of writing philosophy that took seriously the linguistic and cultural turns of the twentieth century Introduction that Wittgenstein helped to shape. Each of them took seriously and defined themselves in terms of rejection of The argument of this paper is that Richard Rorty and Wittgenstein’s Stanley Cavell, between them--though in different and foundationalism and representationalism. Similarly, they sometimes opposing ways--define American philosophy embraced the historicism of the later Wittgenstein, ‘after Wittgenstein’ and taken together they assert aided by readings of Heidegger and Hegel, on the something distinctive of the tradition of American historical nature of language, culture and philosophy. anti-cartesianism—his 1 philosophy . Rorty and Cavell, now among the elder 1 This essay is written in honor of Kenneth Wain at the University of Malta who was a strong commentator on postmodernism/poststructuralism which is the also the title of a chapter (Chapter 3) that we co-authored for the Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Education, Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R. & Standish, P., Oxford, Blackwell, 2003. Ken Wain has written extensively on postmodernism, Foucault and Rorty. The essay emerges out of a series of conversations with Melvin Armstrong, an African American PhD student in the Department of Educational Studies who is completing his doctorate on black philosophy and black philosophy of education. My thanks to Melvin who has taken to trouble to discuss his ideas with me and introduce me to canonical texts. W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters Yet even given their distinctive contributions and their the Black canon and its anthologizations. It is also an bold reworkings of the idea of America and American interpretation open to challenge on grounds of the philosophy, I will argue that neither took their development of liberal political theory by Rawls, historicism far enough to recognize the central fact of Nussbaum, and others, and even sits uneasily with the birth of America —the form of racism that originated critical legal studies and critical race theory which arises with colonization of America and black slavery. This out of the philosophical engagement with the cultural absence is in part a reflection that the notion of power is history of America. I christen this kind of color-blind not central in their philosophy. It is not until Cornel West philosophy, that which is unaware of its own appeared on the scene in the 1990s that questions of philosophical historicity, ‘white philosophy’, a concept race made it into mainstream American philosophy and which I explore below in conjunction with the idea of black philosophy at last became part of the canon and a America philosophy. legitimate object of philosophical study. This observation should be surprising because it bespeaks something of The Idea of American Philosophy the serious lack of historical reflexivity in American and It is surprising that few scholars have written about enterprising philosophers--a lack that symbolizes both Rorty and Cavell in the same breath or in relation to the privilege and power of America as well as its redefining the contours of American philosophy, a unexamined and assumed global centrality as a place project that to me seems intuitively obvious given their and time to philosophize. There is little in either Rorty or intellectual affinities and differences and in particular Cavell that systematically draws attention to America in they way in which they work their philosophy as a set of any negative sense—the ruthlessness of its colonizing reflections on philosophy and the idea of America. The beginnings, its early black slave economy, or indeed its treatment of American philosophy normally focuses on consistent foreign policy, defined in a series of wars pragmatism. Armen Marsoobian and John Ryder (2004), since the end of WWII: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and editors of The Blackwell Guide to American Philosophy Afghanistan. Rorty American basically follow this route elaborating sources of patriots and their philosophies are patriotic. This essay idealism, pragmatism and naturalism before identifying explores Rorty and Cavell as two leading and major figures in American philosophy (Peirce, James, distinguished philosophers and Wittgensteinian scholars Royce, Santayana, Dewey, Mead, Adams, DuBois, who explore the question of philosophy in the post- Whitehead, Lewis, Langer, Quine, Locke, Buchler) and philosophical culture of America, after the end of major themes (community and democracy, knowledge analytic philosophy. and action, religion, education, art and the aesthetic. philosophy even among and its most Cavell are original good What is surprising about this selection is that Dubois but This lack is not just an excusable occluding of the social neither Rorty nor Cavell make it into the collection. or ignorance of the political but rather reflects a Dubois’ selection is curious as he has no other company consistent and continuing failure of American philosophy in Black philosophy. David Boersema (2005) writing an in its own self-understanding and in its social and entry for The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy political awareness of itself. Such an interpretation is concludes ‘Despite having no core of defining features, consistent with the historical approach to the rise of American Philosophy can nevertheless be seen as both Black consciousness, culture and philosophy, the reflecting and shaping collective American identity over rediscovery of the racist nature of much Western the history of the nation’. Boersema’s (2005) entry then philosophy, and the recovery of early Black philosophy in goes on to explicate American philosophy standardly in the figure of DuBois among others, the reconstruction of relation to Peirce, James and Dewey. In the twentieth 145 W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters century Boersema focuses on idealism, naturalism, ancestral home and science where they were never process philosophy, analytic philosophy, Rawls’ political accepted. Rorty tells this story as one about academic philosophy, Rorty and feminism but no mention of Cavell politics and a split between two kinds of intellectuals: and no mention of race consciousness as a philosophical one who believes the best hope for human freedom is to theme.. be found in the application of scientific method, the other who sees faith in scientific method as an illusion The most successful attempt to define contemporary that masks a nihilistic age. Rorty embraces pragmatism (white) American philosophy in my view is Giovanna as a form of tolerance. Barradori’s (1994) The American Philosopher: Conversation with Quine, Davidson, Putnam, Nozick, In his Richard Rorty: the Making of an American Danto, Rorty, Cavell, MacIntyre, and Kuhn. There is no Philosopher Neil Gross (2008) begins his conclusion with Cornel West or Yancy or recognition of black philosophy the observation of how Rorty almost single-handedly but at least there is the attempt to map a new had rescued pragmatism as an American philosophy cartography of postwar American philosophical culture from its vanishing point. He documents the decline of in its ‘distinctively scientific self-representation’ and its American pragmatism first described by David Hollinger post-analytic formulations, bestriding two models or in his 1980 paper ‘The problem of pragmatism in interpretations: ‘the analytic fracture’ that cuts off roots American history’ and goes on to note its rise and to American pragmatism and early concerns in social or flourishing only sixteen years later, described by James political Kloppenberg as ‘alive, well …and ubiquitous’ (Journal of philosophy and ‘the post-analytical recomposition’ led by Rorty and Cavell. Barradori’s American (1994) conversations are very helpful in sketching a reproductionist sociology of philosophy goes on to range of questions although it does not go far enough in explain the pragmatist revival with reference to leading its American scholars and also Rorty’s ambiguous position in relation philosophy in relation to the idea of America, the to the new community of pragmatist scholars who cultural history of America, and the rise of American turned out to criticize Rorty’s interpretations that had power (and perhaps its decline). For this interpretive provoked a kind of fury against him. Gross recounts the project the best sources are Rorty and Cavell way in which Rorty developed an attack on the paradigm themselves. of analytic philosophy as a whole, calling into question historicist approach to historicize History). philosophy’s Gross self-image, in while his neo-marxist rediscovering the Writing of ‘Philosophy in America Today’ in the American pragmatic elements in the thought of the later Scholar Rorty (1982) formulated a version of C.P. Snow’s Wittgenstein and its overlaps with Peirce, James and two cultures analysis to describe the split between a Dewey to institute nothing less than an American scientific motivated analytic philosophy and a historically pragmatist reading of the humanities. oriented Continental philosophy. He describes his story in five acts: analytic philosophy moves from speculation Richard Wolin (2010) describes Rorty’s political project in to science centered around ‘logical analysis’ (1) which retrospect as it develops late in his career and involving turns in on itself committing suicide in ordinary language a (2) leaving itself without a metaphilosophy or genealogy characterization (3) and hardening the split between analytic and inadequate and not one that Rorty would accept in any Continental philosophy and jettisoning Hegel, Nietzsche, measure even though there is an attempt by Rorty to and Heidegger (4), thus leaving American philosophy distinguish his own project as distinctively different. departments stranded between the humanities as their 146 break from his ‘posmodern’ of friends. postmodernism is Wolin’s woefully W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters Despite this background, Rorty’s own political interests culture in an organic sense nor felt the crushing import crystallized relatively late in life, with the 1998 of Nietzsche's question. publication of Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in the Twentieth Century. It was in this work that Rorty It is a New World pragmatist, Utopian philosophy that is sought to combine his philosophical interest in American able, like European Nietzscheanism, to reject the pragmatism—John Dewey, a family friend whom Rorty Enlightenment's had known as a boy, was one of his intellectual heroes— foundationalism and representationalism, and yet unlike with a commitment to enlightened social reform, whose its European older cousin, it does not jettison the high water marks had been the Progressive Era and the promise of the Enlightenment's political project. It does, New Deal. For Rorty, Achieving Our Country also signified however, substitute a local, historical and contingent a political break with his erstwhile philosophical allies, sense of self for the transhistorical metaphysical subject the so-called postmodernists. He had come to realize of philosophical liberalism. Indeed, Rorty sees no that it was impossible to reconcile postmodernism’s glib connection between the philosophical and political philosophical anarchism with the social democratic strands of the Enlightenment. The success of the credo he had imbibed as a youth and which, in his "American experiment of self-creation" (Rorty, 1998: sixties, he belatedly sought to reactivate. 23), unlike its European counterparts, does not depend metaphysical baggage of upon or require any philosophical assurance or In Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth- justification; philosophy, like poetry, is to be regarded Century America (1998), Rorty differentiates between simply as another means of self-expression. On this two sides of the Left: the cultural Left exemplified by view, it is up to intellectuals and artists to tell inspiring postmodernists and a progressive Left, characterized by stories and to create symbols of greatness about the Dewey and American pragmatism. He criticizes the nation's past as the means of competing for political cultural Left for offering critiques of society, but no leadership. Narratives of national self-creation ought to alternatives. I have argued that Rorty must be viewed in be oriented to what the nation can try to become, rather his native context as someone who engages the than how it has come to be. And, perhaps, this is the philosophical tradition from the perspective of an crucial difference of culture and style between Rorty and American living at the end of the millennium—one who the European post-Nietzscheans: he believes in the views Nietzsche as a European pragmatist, as "the most narrative celebration of his nation's past as the best eminent disciple of Emerson" (1991: 61) (Peters, 2000). means to inspire hope about its future, rather than a Like Nietzsche, he wants to drop the cognitivism that has ‘working through’ of its troublesome or shameful dominated western Intellectual life since Plato, but, episodes. unlike Nietzsche and under the Utopian influence of Dewey, he wishes "to do so in the interests of an Yet America has shameful episodes in its history which is egalitarian society rather than in the interests of a has barely begun to acknowledge—the Ameri-Indian defiant and lonely individualism" (ibid.). This is the genocides connected with colonization and the history difference between the last philosophy of the old of broken treaties, the Black slave plantation capitalism, (European) world, bespeaking "the end of metaphysics" the bombing of that focuses upon the question of European nihilism and nampalm ecoside of Vietnam to mention some imminent cultural disintegration, and the confident, self- prominent examples. The problem is that Rorty narrative assured, Utopian philosophy of the New World, which, in depends upon a situated epistemology: historically its youthful confidence, has never experienced itself as a verifiable stories are dependent on the place and time of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the the story-teller and their subjective experience. The 147 W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters problem is that white philosophers have some difficulty history of philosophy we can learn something important telling the story of Black philosophy or the rise of Black about ourselves (Cavell, 1969, p. xviii). Mathieu Duplay consciousness. (2004) is one of the few who recognizes that Cavell and Rorty use similar strategies to resituate philosophy as While the end of metaphysics is "the final stage in the cultural history or criticism after Wittgenstein. secularisation of culture," (Rorty in Borradori, 1994: 106) detranscendentized and In The Senses of Walden, Stanley Cavell provocatively deprofessionalized, becomes just one form of "cultural states that “America [has] never expressed itself criticism" among others which deprived of any privileged philosophically,” save “in the metaphysical riot of its status or definitive vocabulary, must operate with greatest literature”. A similar insight has prompted historical and socially contextual criteria in the same way Richard Rorty to proclaim that philosophy can no longer as the humanities and the social sciences, it is still the sustain its old territorial claims, and that its sole case that consciousness, experience and subjectivity are remaining purpose is to supervise the “conversation” situated and radically context and person-dependent. between non-philosophical discourses and forms of Rorty's hope at the beginning of this decade was that knowledge. Cavell counters this argument by pointing "English-speaking philosophy in the twenty-first century out that philosophy actually comes into its own when it will have put the representational problematic behind it, loses its traditional privileges: if the mission of as most French-or German-speaking philosophy already philosophical conversation is to question the legitimacy has" (1991: 12). This should have put Rorty in the of territorial appropriation in the name of a common position of the other able to tell the story of philosophy quest for justice, as it has been since Plato’s Republic, from the position of the exclusion of Black thought. His then American literature may be better equipped to only concern is that the academic left no longer carry it out than academic philosophy, with its participates in the "American experiment of self- recognized “field” and carefully guarded boundaries. and philosophy, radically creation" (p. 23): it has "no vision of a country to be achieved by building a consensus on the need for Rorty (1981), in one of the few pieces that directly specific reforms" (p. 15), and it has no program that can engages with Cavell takes him to task for treating ‘our’ deal effectively with the immiseration produced by the cultural history in a cavalier manner: globalization of the labor market. In short, the cultural left, by focusing upon issues of race, ethnicity, and gender has steered towards identity politics and away from economic politics, thus fragmenting the left and destroying the possibility of a progressive alliance. But then he repeats the mistakes on the trasditional Left by ignoring the question of race in America and the fact that it cannot be explained simply in terms of class even in the Obama era. Cavell also has sought to wean philosophy off the search for essences in a way that emphasizes a kind of Wittgensteinian therapy which can no longer be seen as foundational in any sense. Cavell certainly recognizes this critical project and believes that by turning to the 148 Cavell switches with insouciance from the narrow and professional identification of “philosophy” with epistemology to a large sense in which one cannot escape philosophy by criticizing it, simply because any criticism of culture is to be called “philosophy.” To resolve this ambiguity, Cavell would have to convince us that skepticism in the narrow sense, the sense used in ritual interchanges between philosophy professors (Green and Bain, Bradley and Moore, Austin and Ayer), is important for an understanding of skepticism in some deep and romantic sense. He would have to show us that “skepticism” is a good name for the impulse which leads grownups to try to educate themselves, cultures to try to criticize themselves. Then he would have to connect this broad sense with the narrow “technical” sense. My main complaint about his book is that Cavell doesn’t argue for such a connection, but takes it for granted. He doesn’t help us see people like Moore and Austin as important thinkers. Rather, W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters he answers the transcendental quaestio jurishow could they, appearances perhaps to the contrary, be important?-while begging the quaestio facti (pp. 762-3) The question does not concern whose response to our cultural history is more real, but rather how cultural history as philosophy, or philosophy as cultural history, turns on the positionality, race and gender of the narrator. Neither Rorty nor Cavell provide a recognition of the very obvious exclusion of histories and philosophies based on race and on the status of ‘white even risked misunderstanding his method as Rorty began to generate a list of alternative vocabularies that provided different and more inclusive description aligning him with a host of figures in the history of philosophy and privileging the American canon at the same time. In Philosophy and Social Hope Rorty (1999) describes the philosopher (and himself) as one who ‘remaps culture’, who ‘suggests a new and promising way for us to think about the relation among large areas of human activity’. philosophy’ in America. Narratives of ‘White Philosophy’ The judgment of Steve Fuller (2008) that Rorty in some ways also supports this view. He argues that Rorty articulated a distinctive voice of American philosophy by repositioning the pragmatists and did what Hegel and Heidegger did for Germany, making America the final resting place for philosophy but sublimating America’s world-historic self-understanding as a place suspicious of foreigners unless they are willing to blend into the ‘melting pot’. Fuller argues that Rorty’s thought reflects wider cultural shifts that analytic philosophers are hard pressed to admit and that Rorty successfully and single=handedly turned America into the world’s dominant philosophical power. He I use the term ‘white philosophy’ to designate the notion of color-blind philosophy which has special application to American philosophy for its extraordinary capacity to ignore questions of race and for its incapacity to recognize the centrality of the empirical fact of blackness and whiteness in American society and as part of the American deep unconscious structuring politics, economics and education. The term that I have neologized for the purpose of this essay comes from critical race studies and is a direct application of whiteness studies. distinguishes between Cavell and Rorty in the following terms: One of the strongest attacks on ‘white philosophy’ comes George Yancy, Associate Professor of Philosophy To understand Rorty’s significance, it is worth distinguishing American Exceptionalism, which can be found in the original pragmatists and in our time has been best exemplified in the work of Stanley Cavell, from American Triumphalism, which was Rorty’s unique contribution. Rorty’s capacity to create narratives in the history of philosophy enabled him to recast both James and Dewey as public philosophers of the American inheritance while also repositioning the leaders of American philosophers in the analytic tradition--W.V.O. Quine, Wilfred Sellars, and Donald Davidson—redefining their relation to him, to pragmatism and to the future of American philosophy in ways that worried his fellow American philosophers deeply. Attempts to unseat his work by taking issues with the details of his interpretations of thinks like at Duquesne University, who in terms of his own selfdescription describes himself as working: primarily in the areas of critical race theory, critical whiteness studies, and philosophy and the Black experience. He is particularly interested in the formation of African-American philosophical thought as articulated within the social context and historical space of anti-Black racism, African-American agency, and identity formation. His current philosophical project explores the theme of racial embodiment, particularly in terms of how white bodies live their whiteness unreflectively vis-à-vis the interpellation and deformation not only of the black body, but the white body, the philosophical identity formation of whites, and questions of white privilege and power formation. http://www.duq.edu/philosophy/faculty-andstaff/george-yancy.cfm Wittgenstein, Dewey and Heidegger did not faze him and 149 W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters Yancy (1998) edited African-American Philosophers: 17 functioned as ‘things’ to be exploited and used in the service of white people (Yancy & Ryser, 2008: 1). Conversations, and critical readers on Cornel West (2001) and bell hooks, (2010) as well as The Center Must Not Hold: White Women Philosophers on the Whiteness of Philosophy (2010) and What White Looks Like: African American Philosophers on the Whiteness Question (2004). In ‘Fragments of a Social Ontology of Whiteness’ his introduction to What White Looks Like, he begins: Whites have a way of speaking from a center that they often appear to forget forms the white ideological fulcrum upon which what they say (or do not say) and see (or do not see) hinges. In short, whites frequently lie to themselves (p. 1) He goes to say: In ‘Situated Black Women’s Voices in/on the Profession of Philosophy’ the introduction to a special issue of Hypatia devoted to the issue Yancy (2008) come closest to defining the essence of ‘white philosophy’ as an escape from its own historicism. Doing philosophy is an activity. Like all activities, philosophy is situated. As a situated activity, philosophy is shaped according to various norms, assumptions, intuitions, and ways of thinking and feeling about the world. Fundamentally, philosophy is a form of engagement; it is always already a process in medias res. Philosophy is always performed by bodies that are sexed, gendered, and cultural coded in some fashion, and is already always shaped by prior assumptions, interests, concerns, and goals that are historically bounded and pragmatically contextual (p. 1). Despite their pretensions to the contrary, philosophers are unable to brush off the dust of history and begin doing philosophy ex nihilo. Hence, to do philosophy is to be ensconced in history. More specifically, philosophizing is an embodied activity that begins within Without specific naming ‘white philosophy’ he names its and grows out of diverse lived contexts; philosophizing source and hidden normativity: ‘The only real philosophy takes place within the fray of the everyday. On this is done by white men; the only real wisdom is white male score, philosophizing is a plural and diverse form of wisdom’. He goes on to argue that whiteness ‘fails to see activity. In their attempt to escape the social, to defy itself as alien’. To see itself whiteness would have to history, and to reject the body, many philosophers have ‘deny its own imperial epistemological and ontological pretensions of being godlike. They attempt to defy the base’. By refusing the risk of finding itself in exile ‘it confluent social forces that shape their historicity and denies its own potential to be Other… to see through the particularity. They see themselves as detached from the web of white meaning it has spun’ (p. 13). In ‘Whiting Up often inchoate, existential traffic of life and the and Blacking Out’ with Tracey Ann Ryser he addresses background assumptions that are constitutive of a the question of ‘Naming Whiteness’ extending this line particular horizon of understanding. It is then that of thought: philosophy becomes a site of bad faith, presuming to reside in the realm of the static and the disembodied. Under the influence of European travelogues and colonial films, white philosophers, ethnographers, and fiction writers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the West came to understand nonwhites as inferior Others. More specifically, the construction of the concept of race functioned epistemologically and ontologically as a prism through which the Other was constructed and render subhuman. The Other was deemed as inferior in virtually every way—intellectually, morally and culturally. The Other was constructed as savage, barbaric, evil, lustful, different and deviant, in comparison to whites. Whiteness, on this score, served as a metanarrative in terms of which nonwhites 150 Having “departed” from life, having rejected the force of “effective history,” philosophy is just as well dead, devoid of relevance, devoid of particularity, and escapist. In this Yancy follow the contours of argument prvided by feminist thinkers and also seeks an alliance with them. For instance, Alison Bailey and Jacquelin N. Zita (2007) writing for the same journal provide a set of reflections on whiteness in the United States shwing that it has been a long-standing practice in slave folklore and in W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters Mexican resistance to colonialism, Asian American Barack Obama as the first black US president-- not only struggles against exploitation and containment, and the deep structural racism that exists in US society Native American stories of contact with European despite Obama’s talk of ‘post-racial politics’ or the thinly colonizers. They chart the emergence of ‘critical disguised racism of the tea-party movement but also the whiteness’ scholarship in the past two decades among a way identity politics in universities prevents constructive small number of philosophers, critical race theorists, dialogue across theory lines. postcolonial theorists, social historians, and cultural studies scholars who now ‘focus on historical studies of I became interested in the philosophy of race while in racial formation and the deconstruction of whiteness as New Zealand and began rereading the pragmatist canon an unmarked privilege-granting category and system of in terms of the absence of race, learning for instance, dominance’ (p. vii). Bailey and Zita (2007) argues that that John Dewey (1985) avoided race except for one this body of scholarship identifies ‘whiteness as a polite essay on ‘race relations’ to the NAACP. It is also cultural disposition and ideology held in place by specific reported that some of his letters are anti-Semitic. I political, epistemic, mentioned this fact about Dewey some years ago in metaphysical, economic, legal, and historical conditions, passing to my HOD, James Anderson, the distinguished crafted to preserve white identity and relations of white black historian of education, who said to me: ‘Be careful supremacy’ (p. vii). they don’t shoot the messenger’. The Hope of American Pragmatism Paul C. Taylor (2004) comments on Dewey’s ‘silence’ in social, moral, aesthetic, 3 4 his introductory response to Claude McKay’s Selected As a New Zealander of European descent who has Poems. As he comments: ‘whiteness consists in worked with Maori (especially Ngapui), the indigenous occupying a social location of structural privilege in the inhabitants of Aotearoa (New Zealand), over many years, right kind of racialized society (p. 229). Given Dewey’s I came to work in an American mid-west university with contextualism, Taylor reads Dewey’s silence as a refusal some sensitivity to issues of race of a person of mixed reflecting the moral psychology of race that helps English-Italian ancestry living in a post-white settler explains lacunae in his career and in particular, no 2 British society . I was surprised that philosophy courses I references to the Dyer Bill which made lynching a federal took as a student in New Zealand had nothing to say crime in the US. Clearly Dewey was unaware of his own about race and in fact Maori studies had great difficulty whiteness that colored his views of education, asserting itself against the white professoriat to establish itself (Walker, 1999). The philosophy courses seemed to reflect a curriculum that was not historicist or reflexively sensitive to the local, with some exceptions (e.g., Oddie & Perret, 1993). But nothing prepared me for the situation I faced in the US or in Illinois even though I had been present for some years before the election of 2 Working with Professor James Marshall of Auckland University I collaborated on a series of project located in the north of New Zealand (Tai Tokerau) to examine questions around the maintenance and control of Maori language (te reo) in school exam practices and the drop out problem of Maori children. This work is perhaps best illustrated in Peters & Marshall (1988) but see also Peters & Marshall (1990). 3 See Dewey (1985 orig. 1932) and for commentary see Sullivan (2004), Stack (2009) and Fallace (2010). 4 McKay was a Jamaican poet who traveled to the US in 1917 and used the sonnet form to record his responses to the injustices of black life in America. His poem ‘Enslaved’ gives a flavor of his style: Oh when I think of my long-suffering race,/For weary centuries despised, oppressed,/Enslaved and lynched, denied a human place/In the great life line of the Christian West;/And in the Black Land disinherited,/Robbed in the ancient country of its birth,/My heart grows sick with hate, becomes as lead,/For this my race that has no home on earth./Then from the dark depths of my soul I cry/To the avenging angel to consume/The white man's world of wonders utterly:/Let it be swallowed up in earth's vast womb,/Or upward roll as sacrificial smoke/To liberate my people from its yoke! 151 W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters philosophy and America. It is almost as though nothing impresses me greatly is just how recent the rise of black has been learnt by American mainstream philosophy philosophical consciousness is and its contradictory since Dewey although two recent collections on sources of inspiration in the black liberation church, pragmatism and race, Pragmatism and the Problem of phenomenology and black existentialism, often first Race (2004) and Pragmatism Nation, and Race: registered in forms of poetic and narrative resistance. Community in the Age of Empire (2009), though standing West’s thought really only began to crystallize in the late in the long shadow of Cornel West’s (1989) The 1980s with The Evasion of American Philosophy (1989) to American Evasion of Philosophy go some way towards mature in the 1990s with works such as Race Matters addressing these concerns. Both books indicate that (1993) and Keeping Faith (1994), to become accepted pragmatism in its classical phase and thereafter has and anthologized in the 2000s (The Corel West Reader, made important contributions to the study of race and 2001). racism—its social construction was central to Alain L. Locke’s 1915-16 lectures on Race Contacts, James, In charting the birth, decline and resurgence of American Dewey and Addams railed against metaphysics and pragmatism West views it as ‘a specific historical and promoted the view of the ontological integrity of social cultural product of American civilization, a particular set groups. West himself names Wittgenstein, Heidegger of social practices that articulate certain American and Dewey as those philosophers who set us free from desires, values, and responses that are elaborated in the confines of a spurious universalism based on a institutional apparatuses principally controlled by a European projection of its own self-image. significant slice of the American middle class’ (pp. 4-5). He pictures American pragmatism as distinctive My major operating presumption that became a position philosophy based on its ‘anticolonial heritage’ and I adopted with students was based on an affirmative rebelliousness -- ‘a future-oriented instrumentalism that response Euro-American deploys thought as a weapon to enable more effective modernity, the Western tradition in philosophy, have the action—that is more akin to a form of ‘cultural criticism intellectual resources to overcome its own institutional in which the meaning of America is put forward by racism?’ Today I would add ‘and whiteness’. My answer intellectuals in response to distinct social and cultural is an optimistic ‘yes’ even if imperfectly and over the crises’ (p. 5). to the question ‘Does long haul. If I had the space I would argue, for instance, that while contemporary western philosophy in its I think West is too kind to American pragmatism and too analytic suit of armor reduced ethics and politics to quick to see it exclusively as an American philosophy— nonsense and rubble, the Continental driven Hegelian- he like Rorty and Cavell is too much of an American inspired Fanon’s patriot. West’s black American pragmatism needs to get existential psychiatry (even though it was marginalized in outside itself to explore its affinities with Africa, not only the Left tradition) and Du Bois’ pragmatism (even if he the tradition of Négritude initiated by Césaire, Fanon was only recently included as part of a reconstructed and Senghor in the French tradition (as well as its canon), and then what West names as the historicist inspiration in the Harlem renaissance) that inaugurates moment in philosophy—Wittgenstein’s ‘cultural turn’, the tradition of post-colonial criticism but to investigate phenomenology Heidegger’s 152 destruction first of informed western metaphysics, the traditions of African indigenous thought, the African Derrida’s deconstruction, Rorty’s demythologization, diaspora, Foucault’s genealogy that all provided ‘resources for expansions how our metaphilosophical organizing concept of intellectual representational practices’ (West, 1993: 21). What praxes’ to makes sense of philosophizing persons and we understand, analyze and enact and of the expanding Africana and philosophy encyclopedic as ‘as a W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters peoples African and of African descent (Outlaw, 2010). between Islam and Christianity, its historical ties to By doing so it would help academic philosophy racism, enslavement, and colonialism, and its emergence understand its own cultural and historical trajectory and to reason and liberation (Gordon, 2008) is the basis for a shape a more democratic approach to the contingencies recognition of its potential for becoming a truly global of ‘race’ and the role it has played in the construction of philosophy by coming to terms with specific forms of modernity and the modern state system. The emergence contemporary black racism in Brazil, China and India, as of Africana consciousness first in the Afro-Arabic world the west declines and the ‘rest’ rises. in the Middle Ages, its hybridization in the conflicts References Bailey, Alison & Zita, Jacquelyn N. (2007) “The Reproduction of Whiteness: Race and the Regulation of the Gendered Body”, Hypatia, Volume 22, Number 2, Spring 2007, pp. vii-xv. Cavell, Stanley (1969) “Foreword: An Audience for Philosophy”, in Must We Mean What We Say? New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Dewey, J. (1985) “Address to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,” Later Works 1925-1953, 6, Essays, Reviews and Miscellany: 224-230. (May 19, 1932), edited by Jo Ann Booydston with an Introduction by Sidney Ratner. Duplay, M (2004) “Sillon, proximité, écart: le voisinage de la terre dans O Pioneers! de Willa Cather” , Revue française d’études américaines 2004/3 o (n 101) Farr, A. (2004) “Whiteness Visible: Enlightenment Racism and the Structure of Racialized Consciousness’”In What White Looks Like: African-American Philosophers on The Whiteness Question, Edited George Yancy. London, Routledge. Gordon, L. (2008) An Introduction to Africana Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marsoobian, A. & Ryder, J. (2004), (Eds.) The Blackwell Guide to American Philosophy. Oxford, Blackwell. Monney, E.F. (2003) “Two Testimonies in American Philosophy: Stanley Cavell, Henry Bugbee”, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 2. Oddie, G. & Perret, R.W. (1993) Justice, Ethics and New Zealand Society, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Outlaw, L. (2010) “Africana Philosophy”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/africana/. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J. (1988) Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Community Evaluation, Empowerment and Opportunities for Oral Maori Language Reproduction. In: Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, Te Kamihana A Te Karauna Me Nga A HautangaA-Iwi, April, Vol. III, Part Two, Future Directions, Wellington, Government Printer: 703-744. Peters, M.A. & Marshall, J. (1990) “Institutional Racism and the Retention of Maori Students in Northland”, New Zealand Sociology, 5 (1) May: 44-66. Peters, M.A. (2000) Achieving America: Postmodernism and Rorty's Critique of the Cultural Left, Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 22: 3, 223 — 241. Rorty, R. (1982) “From Epistemology to Romance: Cavell on Skepticism”, The Revie Of Metaphysics 34, no. 4 (June 1981): 762-3. Rorty, R. (1982) “Philosophy in America Today”, American Scholar, Spring82, Vol. 51 Issue 2: 183-201. Sullivan, S., (2004) “Racialized Habits: Dewey on Race and Roma.” in Pragmatism and values: The Central European Pragmatist Forum, Volume 1, pp. 139-150 (Eds.) John Ryder and Emil Visnovsky. New York, Rodolpi. Taylor, Paul C. (2004) “Silence and Sympathy: Dewey’s Whiteness”. In: Yancy, G. (2004) (Ed.) What White Looks Like: African American Philosophers on the Whiteness Question. Edited with Introduction and chapter by George Yancy. New York: Routledge. West, C. (1989)The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. West, C. (1993) Race Matters, Boston: Beacon Press, 1993. West, C. (1994) Keeping Faith: Philosophy and Race in America, New York, Routledge. West, C. (2001) The Cornel West Reader, ed. George Yancy, New York: Basic Civitas Books. Wolin, R. (2010) “Richard Rorty in Retrospect”, Dissent, Winter2010, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p73-79, 7p. 153 W H I T E P H I L O S O P H Y I N / O F A M E R I C A Michael A. Peters Yancy, G. & Ryser, T. (2008) “Whiting Up and Blacking Out: White Privilege, Race, and White Chicks”, African American Review, 42. 3-4, Fall/Winter 2008: 1-16 Yancy, G. (1998) (Ed.) African-American Philosophers: 17 Conversations. Edited with Introduction, and all interviews conducted by George Yancy. New York: Routledge, 1998. Yancy, G. (2001) (Ed.) Cornel West: A Critical Reader. Edited with Introduction and chapter by George Yancy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers (2001). Yancy, G. (2004) (Ed.) What White Looks Like: African American Philosophers on the Whiteness Question. Edited with Introduction and chapter by George Yancy. New York: Routledge. 154 Yancy, G. (2009) (Ed.) Critical Perspectives on bell hooks. Co-edited with Maria Del Guadalupe Davidson. Co-authored Introduction and additional submission of chapter. New York: Routledge. Yancy, G. (2010) (Ed.) Critical Perspectives on the Profession of Philosophy: Latin-American and African-American Voices. Edited with Introduction and chapter by George Yancy. SUNY Press (forthcoming). Yancy, G. (2010) (Ed.) The Center Must Not Hold: White Women Philosophers on the Whiteness of Philosophy, Edited with Introduction by George Yancy, Lanham , MD : Lexington Books. BOOK REVIEW: contexts – mainly the pragmatist one. However, not only FELIPE CARREIRA DA SILVA. this is the case – speaking of putting ideas into various G. H. MEAD: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION contexts, da Silva seems to have found a strong (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007. 156 pp.) Roman Madzia (Masaryk University, roman.madzia@mail.muni.cz) typological connection between the social issues Mead addressed a century ago and the problems we are facing at present. At first glance, the aim of da Silva‘s book looks surely manifold – from factual examination of Mead‘s intellectual heritage, through placing it into various perspectives, up to an attempt to find a place for In one of his numerous letters François-Marie Arouet, more widely known by his pen name Voltaire, wrote: „Dear friend, I apologize for having written such a long letter but I did not have enough time to write a short one.” I would like to elaborate a little bit on the words of this great figure of political liberalism because its Mead in contemporary social debates. How do the outcomes of da Silva’s efforts meet the needs of general academic public on the one hand, and to what extent they are able to satisfy the demands of professional Mead researchers on the other, these are the issues I would like to deal with in this paper. message is closely connected to the way Felipe Carreira da Silva treated his topic in the book G. H. Mead: A Critical Introduction. First, as Voltaire seems to point out, we are generally more attracted to things and texts we can conceive in relatively short period of time. It may not be like this every time, but generally people tend to prefer rather short letters and books than otherwise. The reason is quite simple and especially holds for book Although the systematization of the book presented by the author on its very first pages is a little bit different, we could say that da Silva’s book basically falls into two major parts. The ourselves with a subject we can never be certain whether this endeavor of ours is actually worth it or not. Thus, if we happen to be totally ignorant about certain matters, we usually take the shortest credible way out. The second interesting matter to the aforementioned quotation is the realization, that it is actually more challenging and difficult to write a short pregnant text on a subject than an extensive treatise. In other words, the better our understanding of a particular subject, the shorter amount of time it takes us to present it coherently to somebody else. All of what has been said so far counts for Felipe Carreira da Silva’s notable monograph G. H. Mead: A Critical Introduction. part addresses Mead’s fundamental social and philosophical concepts, whereas the second one familiarizes the reader with the reception of these ideas by various intellectual schools of th reading: namely, until we manage to familiarize first st thought in the 20 and 21 century. Right at the outset of this review, it should be noted that one of the most exceptional characteristics of the book G. H. Mead: A Critical Introduction is its great balance when treating philosophical and sociological aspects of Mead’s work. From philosophical point of view, it comes as a true surprise that a professional sociologist is actually able to present such an authentic and dependable picture of philosophical pragmatism, which has been the most abused and misrepresented current of thought of the last century. In fact, the transdisciplinarity of research is a crucial aspect in contemporary Meadian studies and da Silva executes this task very well. Mead himself was an eclectic thinker who was able to link philosophical currents in his work as disparate as idealism, naturalism, In his work, Da Silva (by training a sociologist) not only has come up with an insightful treatment of almost all crucial ideas of George Herbert Mead but also has been able to put Mead’s thinking into proper philosophical French vitalism, behavioral psychology and many others. There is absolutely no doubt about the necessity of putting forth some amount of philosophy when discussing Mead’s work. Since da Silva’s book main goal BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia is to present Mead to social sciences’ students, the level On the other hand, the more advanced readers of Mead of its philosophical accomplishment is adequate and can skip to the second half (chapters 6 to 8) of the book does not slip into any extremes on either side. right away. Whilst the first part only [sic] offers a systematic depiction of Meadian conceptual basics, in As mentioned before, we could divide da Silva’s book to the second part one can find several portions of two parts. The first one (chapters 1 to 5) provides for refreshing ideas concerning the way Mead’s work has readers without prior knowledge of Mead an intellectual been interpreted by different schools of sociology and map of his basic philosophical concepts as well as a philosophy. What needs to be especially appreciated in portrait of his biography. In the case of including the second half of da Silva’s book is the rare attempt to biography into da Silva’s research, I consider this put Mead into real discussion with contemporary historical proceeding to be a correct one for the thinkers in the way far from trivial. Therefore, in the text following reasons: 1) When talking about pragmatist below, I am going to go through the individual chapters philosophy of Mead, and also of Dewey or James for and examine them not so much from the perspective of instance, it is highly appropriate to point out to its „objective accuracy“ (there is no such need) but I will significant moments of their lives because they are quite rather try to discuss with its particular fragments or eke reflective of what they wanted their philosophy to them out with some supplemental ideas that have not become – and that is – a philosophy-put-to-work. In been made explicit. other words, philosophy should actually make a difference to the individual (James) as well as to the As mentioned above, there are several good reasons for society (Mead, Dewey). Mead remained faithful to this including Mead’s personal and intellectual portrait to idea for all his life not only theoretically but also through monographs that have the ambition to deal with the getting practically involved in strivings for social reforms. work of this thinker in its complexity. In this respect, da 2) The second reason why we should not omit Mead’s Silva takes up the approach of the leading Meadian personal history is the incompleteness of his work, which authorities such as Gary Cook and Hans Joas. In the case I propose (as well as da Silva does, after all) to be taken of da Silva’s treatment of Mead’s work, however, there rather as an advantage than otherwise. Knowing Mead’s is at least one more reason for doing this. By depicting historical background enables us to develop some of his the historical background of the evolution of Mead’s ideas in new and fruitful directions. 1 ideas da Silva tries to point out to the condition of fin de siècle that Mead (being a citizen of one of the most As for the rest of the first half of his book (chapters 3 to dynamically developing cities of that times, Chicago) 5), da Silva presents clear although sometimes a little experienced firsthand. As da Silva thoughtfully asserts, too compendious treatment of Mead’s fundamental the times of Mead and our time bear surprisingly many social and psychological concepts. For those readers, commonalities indicating that the problems addressed who are not familiar with Mead’s thought, it is by Mead are very likely be of the same nature that we absolutely neccessary to go through the first part of the are facing today. Our present, exactly like the turn of book to get at least a basic grip on his key concepts such 20 as „taking the role of the other“, „conversation of socially vibrant period combined with a shared prospect gestures“, „significant symbol“ etc. of unavoidable radical change in society or some 2 th century, can be characterized as culturally and approaching „end“. Right from the start da Silva also 1 For instance, the fact that Mead studied and wrote his doctoral dissertation under Wilhelm Dilthey may rise some interesting questions concerning the influence of modern hermeneutics on the development of certain aspects of American pragmatism. 156 2 Da Silva rigorously examines this problem in his book: Da Silva, F. C.: Mead and Modernity: Science, Selfhood, and Democratic Politics, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008. BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia calls attention to the way Dewey influenced Mead’s mobile phone are possible examples of what Mead calls‚ thinking. However, from the historical and systematic objects of immediate experience.‘ We can grab them, point of view it can be claimed that the author slightly feel them, use them. Moreover, Mead suggests that overestimates Dewey’s influence on Mead. Whereas it is human beings are also to be considered as objects, only true, that Mead’s own conceptual and philosophical of a different sort: the reflective self of the human self points of departure began to crystalize to its mature makes it a social object. Social objects (i.e. human form not until he worked with Dewey in Ann Arbor and beings) are distinguished from physical ones through later in Chicago, it can be doubted that for instance their ability to reflect upon surrounding environment, Dewey’s neo-hegelianism could have had any significant including other social objects.“ These words of the 3 influence upon Mead (pp. 24-25). On the other hand, 4 author imply at least two things that actually are not the author seems to neglect the impact of Mead’s ideas faithful to what Mead seems to present in his writings. upon Dewey’s own thinking. Except for these two slight The first problematic moment of the passage cited inaccuracies the Mead’s short intellectual biography put above is the implication that according to Mead, all forth by da Silva is fully sufficient for the purposes of his objects can be basically classified into two categories: treatise and introduces the whole subject very well. physical and social. Physical objects are those we can touch, see, smell, grab (to put it simply) etc. and the At the outset of chapter three da Silva decided to social ones are selves. As long as Mead’s ontology is examine arguably the most important notion of Mead’s concerned, da Silva is right about the first category, but thought – taking the role of the other. In brief manner da apparently fails to understand the second one. In Mead’s Silva explains basic concepts like gestures, symbols, ontological texts we can really see him operating significant symbols etc. All of these are defined quite extensively with the notion of physical object, but social clearly, although it is my impression that they deserve a objects are something quite different. They have a lot little more space to being dealt with really profoundly. more to do with Mead’s theory of meaning than What can be considered the biggest problem of this ontology. Social objects are not primarily selves as da chapter, however, is the author‘s understanding of Silva seems to suggest. By contrast, they can be defined Mead’s concept of social object which represents one of as whatever that has a common meaning for each very few factual mistakes in the whole book. Da Silva participant in the social act. Thus, it is conceivable that writes: „For Mead, human beings live in a world made of social objects can be some selves as well as physical objects. Most objects around us are physical: a pen or a objects but also some other „objects.“ This brings us to 5 the second possible objection concerning the author’s 3 There are at least two reasons for this: 1) Mead met Dewey in 1891, i.e. at the time when Dewey was already in the process of moving away from neo-hegelianism [Cf. Dewey’s articles: Is Logic a Dualistic Science? (1890), Logic of Verification (1890) and The Present Position of Logical Theory (1891)]. 2) There was basically no need for Dewey to inspire Mead in the neo-hegelian way, because Mead at that time was already well aware of it – he studied under Josiah Royce at Harvard and then spent three years in Germany. 4 We have quite strong historical evidence, that some of key philosophical premises of Dewey’s thinking have actually their source in Mead. Cf. Dewey, J. M.: The Biography of John Dewey in: Schipp, P.A. (ed.): The Philosophy of John Dewey, New York: Tudor Publishing Co. 1939, pp. 25-26.; Morris, Ch. W. in: Mead, G. H.: Mind, Self, and Society, Morris, Ch.W. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1967, pp. xi. treatment of objects. According to Silva, in Mead, the world only consists of physical and social objects, in other words – material things and selves, nothing more. Well, cannot we think of many other objects? What about political parties, bank accounts, language or various kinds of social institutions? They are neither physical objects, nor are they selves. Also in the light of this objection we can see that the author’s account of social object is a little problematic. I am aware of no 5 Cf. Mead, G. H.: Mind, Self, and Society, Morris, Ch.W. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp. 277-280. 157 BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia Mead’s paper providing us with an enumerative account texts. What needs to be especially appreciated is the of what is to be counted as an object and what is not. By distinction between various „stages“ of consciousness, i. contrast, Mead seems to claim that an object should be e. consciousness as awareness, consciousness as counted as such if we are able to act toward it. To put it reflective intelligence and mind. These very closely a little differently, the criterion of something being an related concepts cause a lot of misunderstandings in object is the possibility of taking action toward it. 6 dealing with Mead’s social psychology. While consciousness as awareness should be understood as a The rest of the chapter presents logical and subjective experience of objects or feelings to the sophisticated explanation of Mead’s account of the individual, consciousness as reflective intelligence has to emergence of symbolic processes and the mechanism of do with our dealings with the social world as reflective social organization resting upon it. What is particularly intelligent useful and at the same time helpful for beginning symbolization start to play an absolutely crucial role. researchers are the distinctions within particular Mead’s Using symbols and language seems to considerably concepts (subjective and intersubjective reflectivity etc.). enhance our capability of selective thinking because it In describing the conceptual starting points of Mead’s portions the continuum of experience into functional theory of communication and sociality it is very parts helping us cope with broad scope of problems neccesary to explain the diferences between gestures, within it. If Mead says, that „intelligence is largely a conversation of gestures and significant symbols – it is matter of selectivity“ , this is what he has in mind. on the background of these that we should get a proper Moreover, reflexivity is the ability to test various picture of what Mead actually meant by taking the role available options of conduct mentally, so we actually do of the other. Da Silva, being aware of this fact, did this not have to try every alternative course of action. work very well. There is also another important thing Reflexivity is also a necessary condition for the that the author pointed out to, namely the existence of emergence of mind. We can call an individual as minded Mead’s taxonomy of language moods (pp. 38-39), that if she is able to become an object to herself in the we actually know (obviously in much more elaborated presentation of different lines of conduct. We see, then, form) from the Oxford ordinary language philosophers. that reflective intelligence and mind are closely Although the existence of Mead‘s distinction between connected but not coextensive terms. Mind, the way language moods is probably more important for Mead uses it, has a lot to do with the social dimension of philosophers than sociologists, it displays how far ahead conduct, in other words, it is something that arises from of his times Mead actually got in his analyses of language a social matrix of interactions among individuals. and communication. Reflexivity, on the other hand, is basically a function of beings. This is where language and 7 our cortex that enables this kind of social interaction, Chapter four revolves around Mead’s treatment of the but still can not be called mindedness because mind, emergence of self through individual’s participating in according to Mead, is not something that can be communicative processes. Again, probably the greatest localized in any part of our body. Da Silva, being well 8 9 value of this chapter does not lie in presenting a systematic treatment of the subject (as presented in many other books on Mead before) but in introducing careful distinctions into sometimes a little messy Mead’s 6 Cf. Mead, G. H.: The Philosophy of the Act, Dunham, A. M.; Miller, D. L.; Morris, Ch. W. (eds.), Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1938, pp. 430. 158 7 Mead, G. H.: Mind, Self, and Society, Morris, Ch. W. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, p. 99. 8 For instance, Cornelis de Waal goes as far as to place mind wholly in the space of social discourse. Cf. de Waal, C.: On Mead, Belmont: Wadsworth 2002, p. 66. 9 Cf. Mead, G. H.: Mind, Self, and Society, Morris, Ch. W. (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967, p. 53. BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia aware of this, presented the reader with the useful the order of words – in the condition of individuals being distinction between what we can call „stages of born to already existing social groups – obviously, it consciousness“ but probably could have gone a little bit would be more appropriate to start off with society, further when discussing the difference between nevertheless this is not Mead’s point. Arguably, from reflexivity and mind. Mead’s pragmatist evolutionary perspective such an approach would be clearly anachronistic. We do not As a kind of recapitulation of previous findings we can need society (a large social group – in the ordinary sense read chapter five called „Society, Mind, and Self.“ Da of the word) to become selves, all we need is a second Silva deliberately mingled the words‘ order in the title of individual. 11 Mead’s most famous book Mind, Self, and Society and used it in his own favour. According to da Silva, Charles Owing to application of his social-philosophical ideas W. Morris (who was the actual collectioner of this even to interactions between nations Mead shows how Mead’s text) did not choose the proper order of words remarkably coherent and encompassing his philosophy when he decided to put mind in the first place, and self really is. The issues of foreign policy were at the center and society in second and third place respectively. Is it of Mead’s attention mainly in the times of World War I. not the case that according to Mead it is society that The author accurately points out to some of Mead’s logically comes first, and only after that do we have mind opinions of how international relations should be and self? It is an interesting question. Da Silva’s structured and managed. It is also on the background of argument seems to be sound but only to a certain these that we can see (unfortunately) that not much has extent. If we read Mind, Self and Society, what we can changed since then. In this part of the book we can also actually see, it is Mead’s attempt to put forth a genetic notice one more aspect, making Mead’s thought up-to- interpretation of how society possibly could evolve out date and inspiring, especially when we take Mead into of gestural interactions between human beings. In this an imaginary discussion with some European thinkers respect it is appropriate to read Mead’s theories of such as Foucault. As well as Foucault, Mead thoroughly 10 society as Israel Scheffler proposes, namely as being of examined the relation of individual and society in terms similar kind as for instance social contract theory. of social control. What is interesting though, Mead’s Although (with most probability) there was no such conclusions differ enormously from those of Foucault moment in the human history when social contract was even though they both can be identified as social actually made, it still provides us with very deep insights determinists of some sort. As we know, the picture of that can hardly be doubted. These insights immensely the relation between society and an individual we are have and presented by Foucault is rather a pessimistic one. He can functioning of political and legal systems. The same not see any possibility for an individual how to set free counts for Mead’s theories of communication and from certain social forces, not to speak about her society. Even though we will never able to trace the potential of changing society. However, even if we take origins of human language, the explanations and the historical point of view, what Foucault says, is interpretations of it in Mead’s texts show us where to apparently not true; and Mead is well aware of that. For look for it‘s logical (not historical) roots, because they Mead, the fact that an individual is able to change hardly ever took place in the form Mead writes. To get (sometimes quite radically) the course of society’s life back to da Silva’s above mentioned proposal of reversing comes very naturally. In fact, in his writings he does not helped us understand the existence 11 10 Cf. Scheffler, I.: Four Pragmatists: A Critical Introduction to Peirce, James, Mead, and Dewey, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974, p. 175-176. Of course, the scope of social relations in the case of „society” consisting of only two individuals would be considerably limited, yet in the most basic sense, we logically have all we need to become „selves.” 159 BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia devote too much space for justification of this idea, methodological background of symbolic interactionism. which indicates that the clash between radical social Da Silva convincingly shows that pragmatism’s main determinists and those who advocated more liberal goal, which was nothing less than overcoming the position was not the true reason why he wrote on this Cartesian rationalism by means of a naturalistic topic. In this respect da Silva convincingly shows, how philosophy of action is at the same time one of the most Mead’s individual psychology (I-me distinction) is in important conceptual resources of the whole new accordance with the relation of self and society. Since tradition of symbolic interactionism. Speaking of the the self is an internalization of social practices (me) it relation of Mead and the Chicago school of sociology, mirrors in itself the moral order of this society; on the one more issue should be noted; it is highly probable other hand the creative and dynamic side of our that personality (I) puts this order repeatedly to test in the philosophy and social psychology on the one hand, and course of social life of the individual. Very rarely are both the newly emerging current of sociology on the other, sides of our selves in total balance. Most of our was made possible by Mead’s great programmatic personalities are dominated by one of these sides. Those openness toward empirical research. For all his life, selves that are dominated by the “I” tend to put the Mead strived to find appropriate means of putting his social order more often to question and creatively theories into practice and evaluating them. Although he reconstruct not primarily the moral order of the society, himself did not fully succeed during his lifetime, his but first – themselves. Thus, Mead displays how social students pushed these efforts much further and also criticism is but a form of self-criticism. If the person is succeeded remarkably. In this respect, the person of able to address and reconstruct in herself the problems Herbert Blumer should be mentioned. Blumer was one of the broader scope of members of the society, she can of Mead’s most devoted students (beside Ellsworth bring about a radical change in it. This is also the main Faris, for instance), who remained faithful to the main message of Mead’s pragmatist ethics; if we are able to route of research, set by his teacher, for all his life. It was build a society that will always preserve free discussion, also him, who in 1937 coined the term „symbolic exchange of ideas and individual’s creative potential we interactionism.“ Blumer’s role in spreading Mead’s ideas actually make sure, that it is going to move toward in the world of social sciences can hardly be greater common good of the whole. overemphasized; it was actually owing to him, that the unproblematic fusion between Mead’s symbolic interactionism became the leading current of With chapter six the reader enters the second part of the sociological research in 60s and 70s of the last century. book. As mentioned above, through presentation of all Apart from this, as da Silva contends, in many aspects of the crucial aspects of Mead’s social theory da Silva had his work, Blumer drags his teacher to directions Mead prepared the conceptual background for an imaginary would himself probably never have gone. discussion between Mead and the continuators of his 160 work. The main value of da Silva’s treatment of this According to da Silva, probably the most serious problem subject can be found in thorough examination of the in Blumer’s reception of Mead is his alleged nominalism. influence of the tradition of American pragmatism not Blumer seems to argue, that Mead understood symbolic only on Mead but also on the „Chicago school” of interaction as involving interpretation, or ascertaining of sociology as a whole. In this respect he mentions Dmitri meaning of the actions or the remarks of the other Shalin’s important work „Pragmatism and Social person, and definition, or conveying indications to Interactionism” (1986) that summarizes the main areas another person as to how she is to act. Da Silva, on the in which pragmatism has been most influential in the other hand, claims that in Mead nothing like this is process possible because meaning is something that lies in the of formulating the conceptual and BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia social act even prior to the emergence of consciousness In the rest of the chapter the author carefully maps the (p. 79). Da Silva is right, according to Mead, the meaning development of Mead’s ideas in for instance in the of a social act is present in it before the awareness of „Iowa School“, and also in the work of renowned meaning occurs. This is after all why some animals can sociologists like Anselm Strauss, Erving Goffman and act in meaningful way without being aware of it. But Howard S. Becker. The positions of the aforementioned does it necessarily mean that we get to this meaning in sociologists are examined by da Silva from strictly any other way than interpretation? Da Silva writes: Meadian perspective which gives us a very good outlook „…Blumer’s Mead is said to conceive of symbolic on how divergent currents of thought Mead’s texts interaction as a formative process through which provoked. The way da Silva has treated his subject in this meaning is created.“ Does the term interpretation mean chapter makes it attractive and comprehensible even for creating the meaning out of nothing as da Silva those students of humanities who have not undergone maintains? Certainly not. What he apparently fails to any thorough sociological training. understand is the fact that interpretation and prior existence of meaning are not contradictory notions. If The main value of chapter seven lies in relating Mead’s we are involved in a social act the nature of which is not thinking to several outstanding European intellectuals yet clear to us, we have to figure it out. And how do we such as Arnold Gehlen, Jürgen Habermas, Axel Honneth, figure it out but through interpretation? Let me give an Hans Joas and also to head representatives of conflict example: say, I go across a crowded center of town, theory (Randall Collins) and neofunctionalism (Jeffrey smoking my cigarette and out of the sudden I can see a Alexander). In this chapter da Silva excellently explains person in the distance waving her hand in my direction. why it was in post-war Germany where Mead’s work Since I am a little short-sighted I cannot recognize her anchored so strongly. In short, the changed social and face. There is definitely a purpose (representing the political conditions of this country paved the way for meaning of the social act) in her waving hand but at that Mead’s thinking in two ways: 1) Through Mead, and moment I am not aware of it. What I have to do is to American pragmatism in general, Germany was able to interpret it; say, by looking around me I make sure she is return to it’s intellectual roots – idealism; 2) Since not waving at somebody else or by recalling the local law Mead’s social theory can be seen as a democratic I make sure I am allowed to smoke in public places, I can alternative to the work of Marx, Mead’s ideas were also go closer to ask her etc. In other words, although immediately embraced and further developed within the the meaning of the act as a whole is present in the second generation of Frankfurt school. situation from the very beginning, in order to follow it, sometimes we have to take some action, in the In the last chapter da Silva sums up the conclusions of pragmatist words – we have to do inquiry. The only his book trying to answer the question „Why read Mead difference is that in social dealings with other human today?“ Throughout his book da Silva not only has beings we do not call these research activities inquiry shown that Mead was one of the founding fathers of but interpretation. Since moving in the world of human modern sociology, social psychology and pragmatism, communication is not moving primarily among physical but also presented how his work continuously provokes objects but meanings, we do not inquire, we interpret. new and fruitful ways of thinking about society. Yet, Coming back to Blumer, it is probably a little too harsh there is one more idea the author deliberately has not from da Silva to contend that Blumer misrepresents fully developed in this particular book – Mead’s work is Mead in this aspect of his work. to a great extent an answer to problems, that are 12 actually very similar to our own. As well as we do, Mead 12 See footnote no. 2. 161 BOOK REVIEW: F E L I P E C A R R E I R A D A S I L V A . G. H . M E A D : A C R I T I C A L I N T R O D U C T I O N Roman Madzia lived in a historical period when the social structure was ideas in various disciplines of social sciences. In the book deeply shaken by the upcoming uncertainties of the new G. H. Mead: A Critical Introduction the author has done era. His early liberal modernity was a subject to similar an impressive work in presenting some key aspects of historical contingency, uncertainty and pluralism as our Mead’s thinking and also the reasons why he is still late post-industrial modernity. Having said all the above worth reading. This work on Mead places Felipe Carreira we must admit that George Herbert Mead is the kind of da Silva among the leading scholars in the field. thinker, who will long remain a great source of original 162 M I C H A E L L I N N E L D R I D G E ( 1 94 1 -2 01 0) James Campbell taught with seeming success — he was approaching MICHAEL LINN ELDRIDGE (1941-2010) tenure with a record as an effective chair and the 1993 Michael Eldridge was born in Oklahoma City, OK, on 13 October 1941. He died unexpectedly at home in Charlotte, NC, on 18 September 2010 from a pulmonary embolism that developed after he broke his leg in an recipient of the ‘Teacher of the Year’ award — until 1994, when theological differences with the Presbyterian administration led to his dismissal. Mike landed across town at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte as a long-term lecturer, a position that he held until his accident in his yard. official retirement in 2008. Far more than a place-holder He began his higher education at Harding College in Searcy, AR, from which he graduated in 1964 with a BA in biblical languages. After further study at Abilene Christian College, he received a BD degree from the Yale in that role, he was deeply involved in the life of the department and in undergraduate education. He served, for example, for a number of years as the undergraduate philosophy coordinator. Divinity School in 1969. Upon ordination in the Disciples of Christ, Mike spent the next five years in the ministry in Baltimore, MD, working in tandem for two churches, one belonging to the Disciples and the other to the United Church of Christ. Eventually, he drifted from the church into community organizing work for the city of Baltimore. Mike then taught ethics at the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in the Bronx from 1975 to 1978. During his years in Charlotte, Mike was also a very active scholar. His publications include: Transforming Experience: John Dewey’s Cultural Instrumentalism (Vanderbilt University Press, 1998); the “Introduction” to the second volume of The Correspondence of John Dewey (InteLex, 2001); and numerous articles and encyclopedia entries on various aspects of American philosophy and the situation in American higher Mike returned to higher education in 1978, taking his first philosophy course ever and eventually receiving an education. Mike also managed the website: www.obamaspragmatism.info. MA in philosophy from Columbia University in 1980. He was awarded a PhD from the University of Florida at the age of 43 in 1985 with a dissertation entitled: “Philosophy as Religion: A Study in Critical Devotion.” On the international philosophical scene, Mike served as a Fulbright lecturer at the University of Szeged, Hungary (2004). He also was a welcome participant in numerous international conferences. After a further year as an instructor at Florida, Mike entered a tough job market; and, in an attempt to maximize his assets in Greek and Latin, he offered himself as an expert in ancient philosophy. I first met Among the countries he visited as an ambassador of American philosophy were: Cuba, Brazil, Finland, Slovakia, Poland, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Turkey, China, and South Korea. Mike at this point, when he spent a few days in Toledo on an ill-fated job interview at my university. Based on that brief encounter, I have no doubt that he would have become a very effective teacher of ancient philosophy had he continued in that direction; but all of us would have suffered a great loss. Some of the memories I have of our joint travels — in addition, of course, to the real philosophical work — include a panel at a world congress in Porto Alegre, Brazil, where Mike greatly enjoyed having his visage displayed on a dictator-sized screen above his head as he spoke; a bus trip in a downpour near Shanghai, when In 1986, Mike was hired to teach philosophy at Spring Hill College in Mobile, AL, and he taught there until 1989. He then moved to Queens College in Charlotte, where he Mike got soaked as he sat by a faulty window; a quiet meal of reindeer meat in the late-night sun in Helsinki, and the quest for ever-better ice cream in Cadiz. 163 M I C H A E L L I N N E L D R I D G E ( 1 94 1 -2 01 0) James Campbell rather than original producers of it. The philosophy that was taught had its origins in Europe and was an ultimately unstable synthesis of empiricism, Christianity, and the metaphysics of a reality that lies beyond experience. It was above all anti-skeptical and practical in orientation. This Scottish common sense realism, as it was known, was considered safe and necessary for the education of a Christian gentleman, which it was the aim of the college to produce. Philosophy was not done for its own sake; it was fully a part of the community, that is, the educated, professional, economically advantaged segment of society. It supported the evangelical orientation of this community, while enabling its teachers and students to embrace fully the scientific and technological 3 developments of the day. For many years, Mike was very active on the programs of the annual meetings of the Society for the Advancement of American Philosophy. He was eventually elected to the position of Secretary, a position he filled with great enthusiasm and care, from 2006-2010. When he stepped down last year, he was honored by the Society with its Josiah Royce Award for Loyalty for his many years of service. Unlike some philosophers whose lives and work seem separate projects, Mike revealed a great deal about himself in his writings. His topics were his own, not drawn from what was ‘in the air’; his style was personal, slow and thorough. What I would like to do in my remaining time is to develop a partial portrait of Mike by This academic world was being upset by Darwinism, the ‘higher’ biblical criticism, and the many industrial and social changes that followed the Civil War. sketching out some of his philosophical ideas on the topics of higher education, political change, and religious For a Deweyan like Mike, this moment represented a great possibility for fashioning a system of higher renewal. education — with philosophy at its core — to advance an Beginning with higher education, Mike wrote a detailed review of my volume on the early years of the American Philosophical Association. 1 His review begins, unpromisingly, as follows: “This is not a book that everyone should read”; but Mike saves himself when he continues that it is a book that “anyone who cares about our profession” and how it reached its present situation alternate conception of the social good. We know, of course, that things turned out differently; that the leaders (and perhaps the membership) of the Western Philosophical Association and the American Philosophical Association were far more interested in narrow philosophical research and advancing ‘original work.’ As Mike writes: 2 “should study carefully.” We can consider, for example, Attention to teaching, the production of textbooks, the transmitting of past philosophical achievements — all within a conventional cultural understanding — was what they were attempting to go beyond. These had been the emphases of the colleges. These newly professional philosophers were developing a support group that would enable them to be fully a part of the new scientific, rigorous education that was emerging at the end of the nineteenth century . . . this transformed profession would value ‘original investigation’ over edification either in the classroom or in public forums. What philosophy became in the twentieth century was no accident; it was truly a thoughtful profession even if some of us now 4 question the wisdom of this thoughtful action. his careful summary of the nature and workings of the old-time college: academic philosophy in the United States in the nineteenth century was found most often in small colleges and was confined to a single course taught by the Protestant ministerpresident. And by ‘small’ I mean really small. The faculty oftentimes was no more than a half dozen or so college-educated — not universitytrained — teachers. They understood themselves to be transmitters of knowledge 1 James Campbell, A Thoughtful Profession: The Early Years of the American Philosophical Association (Chicago: Open Court, 2006). 2 “When Philosophy Became What It Is Today,” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, XLIII/2 (Spring 2007), pp. 375-381. This passage appears on page 376. 164 3 4 Ibid., pp. 376-377. Ibid., pp. 378, 380. M I C H A E L L I N N E L D R I D G E ( 1 94 1 -2 01 0) James Campbell This abdication of a public role by the philosophical bring about others,” and “[t]his employment of indirect profession bothered Mike, both because it cut action is intelligence.” philosophy out of a major social task, and because it intelligent change did not necessarily mean peaceful deprived those who were so engaged from any change: 7 Mike realized, however, that philosophical help. I grew up in a segregated society. I can recall separate schools for blacks and whites, separate public restrooms and drinking fountains, and violent racial confrontations. I do not think that the civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties could have had the success it did in transforming the deplorable, desperate situation without something more than discussion, communication, and good will. We needed the sometimes painful confrontations that were often occasioned by the aggressive tactics of the civil rights movement. Turning now to Mike’s work in political philosophy, we all know that he found in Dewey help for addressing the problems of social change. (I doubt that he would have found similar help in Plato or Aristotle, had he continued in ancient philosophy). One of the themes to which Mike returned again and again was Dewey’s comment that he had not been attempting to “practicalize intelligence” but rather to Mike continues, however, that “education, whether we are talking about schooling or that which occurs through 5 “intellectualize practice.” Mike’s take on this distinction was that social practice was our primary interest, although too often our practice was unthinking and myopic. “We act in habitual ways, but sometimes our customary ways of acting cease to be effective ways of public deliberation, is preferable to sudden, violent change, particularly if that violence is allowed to overwhelm and displace the deliberative efforts.” 8 Intelligent change also means change that does not create more problems. meeting our needs.” In these instances, when there is “a discrepancy between our interests and our satisfactions,” we need to examine our practices and find a better fit “between ends and means.” When we decide that the gap between the two has become too great, we should “rethink what we are doing,” following Dewey’s suggestions perimentation.” for “deliberation and ex- A third central theme is Mike’s focus on the long-term. As he writes, “[t]he aim of a democratic political technology is to create a social order that liberates individuals; it is not mere political victory.” The goal in democratic politics is “the widespread distribution of power, not its concentration.” For Mike, the best means 6 available for distributing power was to “intelligize political practice” by adopting such strategic guidelines The theme of the complexity of intelligent change was as: another important aspect of Mike’s social thought. He notes repeatedly that we have the power to modify our (1) Be wary of both idealists and political operatives, for both separate ideals and methods ... (2) realize that neither the existing situation nor some supposed alternative is absolute. The present situation was constructed by human activity; therefore, it can be reconstructed . . . (3) employ social inquiry to identify both the practice to be changed (including its conditions future: “we do not have to just take what comes.” We can advance our interests by using “some activities to 5 Transforming Experience: John Dewey’s Cultural Instrumentalism (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998), p. 5. Eldridge is drawing here from Charles Frankel, “John Dewey’s Social Philosophy,” New Studies in the Philosophy of John Dewey, ed. Steven M. Cahn (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1977), pp. 3-44. 6 “Dewey on Race and Social Change,” Pragmatism and the Problem of Race, ed. Bill E. Lawson and Donald F. Koch, (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), pp. 11-21. This passage appears on page 16. 7 Transforming Experience, p. 200. “Thick Democracy Too Much? Try Pragmatism Lite,” Education for a Democratic Society, ed. John Ryder and Gert-Rüdiger Wegmarshaus, (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), pp. 121-129. This passage appears on p. 127. 8 165 M I C H A E L L I N N E L D R I D G E ( 1 94 1 -2 01 0) James Campbell and consequences) and the end-in-view to be realized . . . (4) use social inquiry to create a public . . . Publics are neither given nor found; they are created through informed, open communication and self-identification in reference to common needs and purposes. Publics are made, not born, and they are made through inquiry. . . (5) look for middle ground — that is commonalities . . (6) employ democratic means to realize 9 democratic ends. and what Mike attempted, was “the emancipation of the Mike also writes about the place of philosophy in this Mike writes that Dewey “was trying to find a middle way process of intelligent social change: “the task of the between his secular sensibility and the conventional social philosopher is to encourage the development of religious heritage of his reading public.” the method of social intelligence; it is not to work out religious attitude — among whom I would classify Mike the solutions.” 10 religious elements within ordinary experience,” 12 the cultivation of a sense of a larger whole that is often submerged in the moments of living. This emancipation has been the task of naturalism — which Mike describes as “opposition to supernaturalism, association with 13 science, and humanity as fully a part of nature” — for at least a century. 14 For those of a Here we have what is an apparent — — this search continues. Mike was a pragmatist who but only an apparent — break with Dewey. Mike writes came late to philosophy; but he became a philosopher that “[w]e should not take his suggestions as suggestions who helped us on this search. for us.” What we need to do instead is to approach “the problems of his time and learn from the method he James Campbell employed.” We thus face two distinct commitments. “It The University of Toledo, USA is the task of philosophy to cultivate methods for dealing March 2011 with human problems; it is the task of everyone to work on our common problems.” To confuse these two tasks and to seek programmatic answers in Dewey is to misunderstand his method. situations, methods.” using 11 his “He spoke to particular philosophically cultivated These situations are not ours — although his approach remains valuable. A third topic that played a large role in Mike’s philosophic perspective was religion, and here too he found help in Dewey’s work. Perhaps drawing upon his own personal experience, Mike wrote of Dewey’s concern “for those who had abandoned traditional beliefs and were not in the churches, yet still considered themselves — or wished to be — religious.” He saw an important role for the religious in the ongoing selfdefinition of the community. What Dewey advocated, 9 Transforming Experience, pp. 113-114. “Dewey on Race and Social Change,” p. 19. 11 “Dewey’s Limited Shelf Life: A Consumer Warning,” In Dewey’s Wake: Unfinished Work of Pragmatic Reconstruction, ed. William J. Gavin, (Albany: SUNY Press, 2003), pp. 25-39. This passage appears on page 37. 10 166 12 Transforming Experience, pp. 147-148, “Naturalism,” Blackwell Guide to American Philosophy, ed. Armen T. Marsoobian and John Ryder (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 52-71. This passage appears on page 52. 14 Transforming Experience, p. 168. 13 COVER BY Susanna Kremer DESING ESI AND TYPESETTING BY Thomas Kremer 168