Richard Rorty on Language #philosophy #rorty #postmodernism #epistemology

Richard Rorty does his typical anti-authoritarian, neopragmatist spiel in this interview clip from the 1998 Εχαminϵd Life series.

#philosophy #rorty #postmodernism #epistemology

[leonstenutz]

Excellent excerpt. So relevant. Thanks for this clip.

[TheVilivan]

Thanks for the short! It's hard for me to focus on long videos so this is a really nice alternative

[megakeenbeen]

Actually, it's not easier to say that. Darwin was only describing a factor into what goes into evolution, viz. natural selection, and that's not the only factor. Random mutation is a factor, mutual aid is a factor, etc. So, it's not actually the case that explanations become simpler to understand if we attribute slow gradual incremental changes to organisms achieved for some purpose. In fact, retrofitting old parts for newer ends (exaptation) is also a factor which happens in evolution. Language could have evolved by one these factors

[aquiladorada]

I wonder what we would think of the current authoritarian scientificism, and the opposite tendency relativism. If this was fined when he said it, the zeistgeist is different, with maximum tension.

[jeffsmith]

What does ‘it’s much easier to say’ mean here? After Darwin, did Rorty improve his locution somehow?

[JoePalau]

I miss Rorty. Such an iconoclast, a disrupter of comfy academic traditions. Ironist, par excellence.

Still, Rorty’s take on language, including tipping his hat to Darwin on the forms of human communication that are not linguistic (semantic, sign driven), he continues to cast a long shadow on forms human expression that are not aimed at truth, per se, but definitional of what it is to be human.

The arts, crafts, and architecture, for example, are monumental expressions of what it is to be human, intelligent humans with open hearts and minds. We define who and what we are in countless ways. Not just on prehistory cave walls or contemporary museums loaded with handsome artifacts from bygone eras

We valorize science and technology and devalue cultural expressions of our humanity, our narratives, our responses to life, nature, or what may lie ahead tomorrow for life on this planet.

Rorty helps to get us back on track from the fallacies
surrounding the “thing-in-itself” philosophy. Still, we need philosophies that open doors to cultural values, societal values, human values to frame what gives meaning to life, our lives, and the rituals we practice in everyday life.

Rorty is keenly aware of these issues first articulated by Dewey. Still, we don't wind up with a general theory on the forms of human expression that are not linguistic yet integral to comprehension of human intelligence and forms of communication. There is work to be done 🧐🧐🧐

[MrHawkMan]

There's no evidence that humans invented language for the aims he gives like 'better food, better sex, etc'. That would give language a utility that no one can say it always had, or on the flip side we can't say either that language is just a power game as that pre-susposes power before the existence of language which I find quite ridiculous. I think if we could find a theory that gives us an origin to language then it would inform our whole understanding not just of philosophy, but also of everything human. In this I find Durkheim and Girard to quite possibly give us the answer which is religion and the sacred.

[eesidvnnellore]

Sri Aurobindo, Savitri and Sanskrit the language fulfils intent to better.