DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Will Wilkinson is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Will Wilkinson

Jump to original thread »
Author

Holbo on Rorty

Started by Will Wilkinson · 9 months ago

John Holbo’s brilliant post explains exactly why I always found Rorty puzzling.
His reformist reach exceeds his justificatory good conscience. He really thinks he’s right, but doesn’t think he can give his opponents rational grounds that they are compelled to accept. ... Continue reading »

7 comments

  • GilM

    2 years ago

    "And he effectively reduced suffering by arguing for his political ideals in such a painfully narcissistic and completely ineffectual fashion that they never actually affected the world. For this, he deserves our thanks."

    Awesome!
    reply
  • TStockmann

    2 years ago

    By way of contrast, if Lant Pritchett succeeds in even slightly opening up wealthy labor markets to workers who lost the passport lottery, he will have done more to end needless cruelty than a million Rortys. But then, Lant Pritchett believes that the effectiveness of his favored means to that end of reducing suffering is a fact of the external world. And it is. That’s powerful.

    And simpleminded, grounded in nauseating piety and a shared if arbitrary sense of fellow feeling - like most "powerful" messages. That's how narrative works and probably why Rorty wasn't so good at it himself.
    reply
  • Will Wilkinson

    2 years ago

    So you don't think Pritchett's plan would help end suffering? Or you do, and this bothers you?
    reply
  • TStockmann

    2 years ago

    Hardly an exhaustive set of choices. Another possible alternative: that an involuntary collective like a nation can't have a moral interest in promoting the wellbeing of nonmembers. But I propose that simply for illustrative purposes. Your first alternative is interesting in that it establishes whether I can be placed within your hortatory narrative, to use Rorty's approach.
    reply
  • Will Wilkinson

    2 years ago

    If it is inconvenient for you to answer my question, I understand.
    reply
  • Larry Hardesty

    2 years ago

    "And he effectively reduced suffering by arguing for his political ideals in such a painfully narcissistic and completely ineffectual fashion that they never actually affected the world"

    That sounds like a plausible claim, given the arguments themselves. But it does make you wonder why 1,500 Iranians attended his lecture in Tehran.
    reply
  • TStockmann

    2 years ago

    The question waa badly phrased, since I indicated that I objected to the psturing of the rhetoric rather than the sentiment itself, although it would be fair to observe that it is more common to object to posturing when you don't agree with the sentiment.

    In specific terms, the level and type of "suffering" alleviated doesn't particularly stir my sympathy, and I haven't a clue whether the complicated end result of the program would be a net positive over time even in those terms. You don't have to be hostile to the prnciple of chest-thumping appeal to end up annoyed by the thumping. Simply being unmoved by it will almost guarantee that result.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login