Relativism: So What? (Part Seven): Beats me; I wrote an article about it but that's as far as I got
Int: In Philosophy And The Mirror of Nature, you attacked Putnam's early philosophy. What do you think of his more recent work?
Rorty: I think our views are practically indistinguishable, but he doesn't. He thinks I'm a relativist and he isn't. And I think: if I'm a relativist, then he's one too.
Int: Why do you think Putnam sees you as a relativist?
Rorty: Beats me. I wrote an article about it, but that was as far as I got.
. . .
Int: Do you disagree with any of Davidson's views?
Rorty: I can't think of anything we really disagree about that doesn't seem to me a verbal issue, but Davidson may have a different view of the matter. Well, one thing is that he keeps saying truth is an absolutely central concept, and I can't see what makes it central or basic. I take Davidson to be saying that truth, belief, meaning, intention, rationality, cognitivity - all these notions are parts of a seamless web, and that seems to me a useful point to make, that you can't have any of these notions without all the others. It's just that he then wants to say, "And truth is in the middle." I can't see why you have to have a middle.
Int: Putnam has also criticized you for deemphasizing truth.
Rorty: Putnam keeps saying that you have to have what he calls "substantive truth." I take Davidson to be saying: there's not much pointing in saying truth is substantive. I don't think Davidson has any better idea than I do what Putnam means by that. Nonetheless, he somehow attaches a weight to the notion that I can't seem to attach to it.
--Interview with Richard Rorty in January 1995 by Joshua Knobe
I'm intending to resume my "Relativism: So what?" series but want to relate it to some other bubbling thoughts, e.g., (1) Given that alienation is my addiction, my default mode, my heroin, am I capitulating to my addiction by avoiding the current rockwrite/musicwrite convo about (e.g.) Vampire Weekend and social class? Or would I be capitulating to that addiction way more if I dove into that conversation? I mean, I've only been thinking about the class thing and the no-success-like-failure thing for forty-two years, but my experience tells me that the convo will be nothing more than pretend, that other than Dave and Tom no one involved in it even wants to start thinking about social class, or knows how, even if class is what they think they're thinking about (and I can talk to Dave or Tom any old time). But since I haven't explored the convo, or Vampire Weekend, I don't know this. I really have little hope. It's like (metaphor I heard the other day) going to starving Ethiopians and asking for food. (2) This generalizes to the two Deaths I was talking about at the end of Microwaving A Tragedy: you're dead if it's all about the other dude, about her/his response, what s/he's gonna do next; but you're just as dead if you don't make the effort to understand the other dude. It rains when you're here and it rains when you're gone, but maybe I just need different dudes. (3) For my own sake I'd like to be less harsh, without being less smart; this involves finding my way to go "Hmmm, what can I learn here? Can I open myself up to its surprise?" without overlooking the basic dysfunction of the conversation. Or do we need to rip up the conversation, forget the dead we've left, find a new world not to be so harsh in, so that I'm no longer the guy who wrote points 1 and 2? (4) I've been calling "relativism" a stand-in issue, a substitute for facing the interpersonal, cross-cultural, intergalactic whatever. So these bubbles will be the deep background of that "relativism."
Rorty: I think our views are practically indistinguishable, but he doesn't. He thinks I'm a relativist and he isn't. And I think: if I'm a relativist, then he's one too.
Int: Why do you think Putnam sees you as a relativist?
Rorty: Beats me. I wrote an article about it, but that was as far as I got.
. . .
Int: Do you disagree with any of Davidson's views?
Rorty: I can't think of anything we really disagree about that doesn't seem to me a verbal issue, but Davidson may have a different view of the matter. Well, one thing is that he keeps saying truth is an absolutely central concept, and I can't see what makes it central or basic. I take Davidson to be saying that truth, belief, meaning, intention, rationality, cognitivity - all these notions are parts of a seamless web, and that seems to me a useful point to make, that you can't have any of these notions without all the others. It's just that he then wants to say, "And truth is in the middle." I can't see why you have to have a middle.
Int: Putnam has also criticized you for deemphasizing truth.
Rorty: Putnam keeps saying that you have to have what he calls "substantive truth." I take Davidson to be saying: there's not much pointing in saying truth is substantive. I don't think Davidson has any better idea than I do what Putnam means by that. Nonetheless, he somehow attaches a weight to the notion that I can't seem to attach to it.
--Interview with Richard Rorty in January 1995 by Joshua Knobe
I'm intending to resume my "Relativism: So what?" series but want to relate it to some other bubbling thoughts, e.g., (1) Given that alienation is my addiction, my default mode, my heroin, am I capitulating to my addiction by avoiding the current rockwrite/musicwrite convo about (e.g.) Vampire Weekend and social class? Or would I be capitulating to that addiction way more if I dove into that conversation? I mean, I've only been thinking about the class thing and the no-success-like-failure thing for forty-two years, but my experience tells me that the convo will be nothing more than pretend, that other than Dave and Tom no one involved in it even wants to start thinking about social class, or knows how, even if class is what they think they're thinking about (and I can talk to Dave or Tom any old time). But since I haven't explored the convo, or Vampire Weekend, I don't know this. I really have little hope. It's like (metaphor I heard the other day) going to starving Ethiopians and asking for food. (2) This generalizes to the two Deaths I was talking about at the end of Microwaving A Tragedy: you're dead if it's all about the other dude, about her/his response, what s/he's gonna do next; but you're just as dead if you don't make the effort to understand the other dude. It rains when you're here and it rains when you're gone, but maybe I just need different dudes. (3) For my own sake I'd like to be less harsh, without being less smart; this involves finding my way to go "Hmmm, what can I learn here? Can I open myself up to its surprise?" without overlooking the basic dysfunction of the conversation. Or do we need to rip up the conversation, forget the dead we've left, find a new world not to be so harsh in, so that I'm no longer the guy who wrote points 1 and 2? (4) I've been calling "relativism" a stand-in issue, a substitute for facing the interpersonal, cross-cultural, intergalactic whatever. So these bubbles will be the deep background of that "relativism."