[lit-ideas] Re: Transcendental and otherwise
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:58:32 -0600
RP:
Rorty's rejection of human knowledge as representational, that is, it does
not by itself support the Rortian view that we cannot see the world
straight and that insofar as this is impossible, the idea of truths about
the world is vacuous. (I'm sure these aren't Rorty's words.) If we cannot
see the world as it is what we say about it cannot be grounded in our
judgments of it.
My reading of Rorty (admittedly prejudiced) is not that he rejects human
knowledge as representational, but that we human beings can't find any way
to warrant any knowledge as truly representational -- a condition that in
effect nulls and voids representationalism for human beings, yes. Breaks my
heart. Rorty says, I say, that we certainly can know things for 'certain'
as long as we know that certainty is always limited to cultural certainty,
since there's no way to ever step outside the human condition and see the
world as God sees it. Consequently, we find ourselves in a world that is a
mishmash of ethnocentric certanties and unless we're prepared to kill quite
a lot people then we'd better learn how to "just get along" with each
other's truths. To me Rorty is definitely not saying that our judgments
about the world are not grounded in our experiences of it, rather that all
we have is the world and our experiences of it. Those experiences are
ethnocentrically "loaded" (if you will), but not determined. What those
experiences never are is indisputable truth.
Mike Geary
indisputably truly
in Memphis
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
