Analyzing Rorty's Views on Knowledge
Uploaded by
Stephen ScheidellAnalyzing Rorty's Views on Knowledge
Uploaded by
Stephen ScheidellStephen Scheidell
Dr. Benson
PHIL 280
Word count: 348
Richard Rort
!ne "inds in Rort pro"ita#le insi$hts% an une&plained opti'is'% and (hat so'e
'i$ht treat as an o)ersi'pli"ied denunciation o" *ristotle+s 'a&i': ,*ll 'en # nature
desire to -no(., Rort+s re'ar-s a#out lan$ua$e pro)ide us (ith a "reedo' to choose our
)oca#ular dependin$ upon the need% rather than pinnin$ ,-no(led$e, as our need and
contortin$ lan$ua$e to "it that need alone. !n the other hand% his opti'is' o" ,#etter
tools, raises .uestions that see' to $o unans(ered /at least in the sections (e read0.
1ounter#alancin$ his opti'is'% his ar$u'ent a$ainst -no(led$e "or -no(led$e+ sa-e
appears so'e(hat unnecessar.
Rort pro)ides "or us a (a o" treatin$ )oca#ular and lan$ua$e a contin$ent 2
#ound # necessit neither to our /non3e&istent0 intrinsic natures nor to the [Link]'ents
o" the e&ternal (orld. 4his idea allo(s us to #e$in thin-in$ in ter's o" practical use o"
[Link]% rather than necessaril (restlin$ (ith .uestions that /to 'an0 are too a#stracted
"ro' dail e&perience. In other (ords% (e can stra "ro' 'ediae)al .uestions o"
ontolo$ and direct that attention to(ards a ,#etter and 'ore de'ocratic, societ.
Ho(e)er% one 'i$ht "ind Rort+s sense o" ,#etter, so'e(hat pro#le'atic. In "act%
one 'i$ht .uestion ho( and in (hat sense anthin$ might $et ,#etter, in a non3
teleolo$ical )ie( o" histor. Rort ar$ues that one )oca#ular is ,#etter, in the sense o"
#ein$ 'ore use"ul% #ut in (hat sense can a societ #eco'e ,#etter5,
6inall% Rort too closel associates his re7ection o" -no(led$e "or -no(led$e+
sa-e and his re7ection o" essentialis'8 he see's to not account "or a (a o" spea-in$
,trul, a#out the (orld (ithout appealin$ to intrinsic nature or essence. Ho( (ould
Rort respond to one ar$uin$ "or the a#ilit to sa true thin$s a#out an o#7ect (ithout
appealin$ to intrinsic nature5 4o use his e&a'ple o" the ta#le% i" I hit ' head a$ainst it
and sa that #ein$ hard is a true characteristic% he 'i$ht respond in sain$ the ta#le+s
hardness is onl relati)e to the so"tness o" ' head. What i" I ar$ue it is there% (ould he
attri#ute its there3ness to the non3there3ness o" so'ethin$ else5