[Wittrs] Re: Debating with Paradigms
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:19:59 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
> > In relation to Thomas Kuhn's 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'
> > Rorty suggested that philosophy, unlike the sciences, doesn't
> > settle down into these longish periods of settled paradigms.
>
> Perhaps that is because it lacks any real subject matter.
> there's that cynicism again).
Did Rorty really say that?
Heh.
More like, it's because Wittgenstein was right, most (or all)
philosophy is just word games, the nature of which is perpetual.
But I think the (Rorty's) claim is debatable.
The shape is just different.
The "paradigms" are thousands of years old, and they run in parallel.
Every now and then someone writes a good paper or book, and the
paper, or the concept, or the author, comprises a paradigm
that enjoys a brief burst of popularity, but that
burst pretty much follows Kuhn's paradigm rules.
Rorty's own paradigm being exactly that universal empiricism that claims that
it has no preconceptions and suffers no paradigms.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
