The Putnam-Rorty Debate and the Pragmatist Revival

Summary

The transcript explores the evolution and revival of pragmatism in American philosophy, highlighting its decline in the mid-20th century and resurgence in the 1970s and 80s due to debates between philosophers like Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty. It discusses the influence of French literary criticism on neo-pragmatism and contrasts differing views on truth, relativism, and the role of philosophy. The discussion reflects on the importance of reinterpreting philosophical traditions to enrich contemporary thought, emphasizing the ongoing relevance of classical pragmatism in modern philosophical discourse.

Takeaways

• 🧐 Pragmatism in America was considered practically dead by the 1940s and 1950s, with little interest in the philosophy at that time.
• 📉 Thinkers like James, Dewey, and Royce were being overshadowed by the rise of positivism and ideas from the Vienna Circle during the 1930s.
• 🔄 Pragmatism saw a revival in the 1970s and 1980s due to a local quarrel between American philosophers Hillary Putnam and Richard Rorty.
• 📚 Rorty, a Neo-pragmatist, was heavily influenced by French literary criticism, particularly by Jacques Derrida, advocating against traditional notions of truth and reality.
• 🏗️ Despite the postmodern view of infinite reinterpretability, the speaker argues that in everyday life and technology, certain stable platforms exist on which we can build further knowledge.
• 🔨 The critique of Neo-pragmatism challenges the idea that technical artifacts require endless reinterpretation, emphasizing their practical assertability.
• 💡 Putnam, despite being influenced by Dewey, distanced himself from the classic pragmatist theory of truth, leading to distinctions within the movement.
• 🌀 The debate between Putnam and Rorty highlighted opposing views, with Putnam advocating slow philosophical progress and Rorty dismissing classical philosophy as over.
• 📖 Rorty viewed philosophy and science as forms of literature, suggesting that the traditional pursuit of truth in philosophy has ended.
• 🎭 The exchange between Putnam and Rorty reflected a recognition that pragmatism needed to evolve by integrating insights from both analytic and continental philosophy to remain relevant.

Q & A

What happened to pragmatism in American philosophy by the end of the 1940s?

Pragmatism in American philosophy was practically dead by the end of the 1940s, with little interest and almost no one reading the works of its proponents like James, Dewey, or Pierce.

What philosophical movements were overshadowing pragmatism during the 1930s?

During the 1930s, pragmatism was being eclipsed by the Vienna Circle and the positivist movement, which were the latest trends from the European continent.

Why did pragmatism experience a revival in the 1970s and 1980s?

Pragmatism was revived in the 1970s and 1980s due to a local quarrel between two American philosophers, Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty, who were still active and influential in the field.

How did French literary criticism influence neopragmatism?

Neopragmatism was heavily influenced by French literary criticism, particularly the work of Jacques Derrida, who advocated for stopping the discussion of reality and truth in traditional terms, which is a clear reflection of postmodern thought.

What is the significance of 'infinite reinterpretability' in the context of the philosophy of technology?

The concept of 'infinite reinterpretability' suggests that technical artifacts and scientific inquiries are not fixed but are subject to constant reevaluation and reinterpretation, challenging the idea of absolute truth or validity in these fields.

What does Richard Rorty suggest about the nature of philosophy and science?

Richard Rorty suggests that philosophy and science are forms of literature, and that the traditional view of philosophy as a discipline that can definitively answer questions about knowledge, reality, and moral values is outdated.

What is the main disagreement between Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty as described in the script?

The main disagreement is about the possibility of progress in philosophy and the nature of truth and warrant. Putnam believes in the possibility of making slow progress towards a valid and adequate picture of philosophical questions, while Rorty sees this as self-deception and claims that philosophy, in that sense, is over.

How does the script characterize the contributions of Richard Rorty to pragmatism?

The script characterizes Richard Rorty as a significant figure who helped revive interest in pragmatism, particularly by highlighting the works of classical pragmatists like James and influencing others, including the script's speaker, to read and teach James.

What does the speaker suggest about the future of pragmatism?

The speaker suggests that for pragmatism to have another 'inning,' it would need to reinterpret the rest of the Eurocentric tradition more fruitfully, enriching itself by combining the strengths of analytic and Continental philosophy.

What is the speaker's view on the quarrel between Putnam and Rorty?

The speaker believes that both Putnam and Rorty were right about each other but not right about themselves, and that their exchange highlighted that they were both pragmatists of a sort, indicating a need for pragmatism to evolve and not be as smug as it had been in the past.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 The Rise and Fall of American Pragmatism

This paragraph discusses the decline of American pragmatism in the mid-20th century, highlighting how the interest in thinkers like Dewey dwindled as the Vienna Circle and positivist movements gained prominence. It also touches upon the revival of pragmatism in the 1970s and 1980s, spurred by a debate between two American philosophers, Hillary Putnam and Richard Rorty. Rorty, influenced by French literary criticism, advocates for a postmodern view that challenges traditional notions of truth and reality. The paragraph emphasizes the tension between Rorty's reinterpretation and the more traditional view of pragmatism.

05:01

📚 The Philosophical Debate Between Rorty and Putnam

This paragraph delves into the intellectual conflict between Rorty and Putnam, focusing on their differing views on the role of philosophy. Rorty argues that philosophy, like science, is a form of literature, rejecting the idea that it can provide definitive answers to classic philosophical questions. Putnam, on the other hand, criticizes Rorty for being a relativist and an anarchist, but also acknowledges the complexity and ongoing nature of philosophical inquiry. The paragraph concludes by recognizing that both philosophers contributed to a reinvigorated pragmatism, which must now engage more deeply with the broader European philosophical tradition.

Keywords

💡Pragmatism

Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that originated in the United States in the late 19th century. It emphasizes the practical consequences of beliefs and the idea that truth is determined by its usefulness. In the video, pragmatism is discussed in the context of its decline and revival in American philosophy, as well as its influence on contemporary thinkers like Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam.

💡Neo-Pragmatism

Neo-Pragmatism is a modern adaptation of classical pragmatism, influenced by postmodern and linguistic ideas. Richard Rorty, one of the key figures mentioned in the video, is associated with this movement. Neo-Pragmatism challenges traditional notions of truth and objectivity, instead viewing them as contingent on social and linguistic practices. The video explores how Neo-Pragmatism differs from classical pragmatism and its impact on contemporary philosophical debates.

💡Vienna Circle

The Vienna Circle was a group of early 20th-century philosophers and scientists who developed the doctrine of logical positivism, emphasizing the verification of scientific statements through empirical evidence. The video mentions the Vienna Circle as a significant intellectual movement that eclipsed pragmatism during the 1930s, influencing the shift in philosophical focus away from American pragmatism towards European logical positivism.

💡Linguistic Pragmatism

Linguistic Pragmatism is an approach within pragmatism that focuses on the role of language in shaping thought and understanding. Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty are noted for incorporating linguistic elements into their pragmatic philosophy. The video discusses how this approach diverges from traditional pragmatism by emphasizing the interpretative and contingent nature of language in philosophical inquiry.

💡Postmodernism

Postmodernism is a broad intellectual movement that emerged in the mid-20th century, characterized by skepticism towards grand narratives and objective truths. The video references postmodernism in relation to Neo-Pragmatism, particularly in its influence on Richard Rorty's ideas about the relativity of truth and the rejection of traditional philosophical categories like 'reality' and 'truth.'

💡Analytic Philosophy

Analytic Philosophy is a style of philosophy that emphasizes clarity of argument and the logical analysis of language. It became the dominant philosophical tradition in the English-speaking world during the 20th century. The video contrasts the progress and challenges of analytic philosophy with the decline of pragmatism, highlighting the debate between philosophers like Rorty and Putnam on the role and future of philosophical inquiry.

💡Richard Rorty

Richard Rorty was an American philosopher associated with Neo-Pragmatism and postmodernism. He challenged the traditional goals of philosophy, arguing that it should be seen as a form of cultural criticism rather than a quest for objective truth. The video discusses Rorty's influence on the revival of pragmatism, his critique of classical philosophy, and his debate with Hilary Putnam on issues like truth and relativism.

💡Hilary Putnam

Hilary Putnam was an American philosopher known for his work in the philosophy of mind, language, and science. He is discussed in the video as a key figure in the revival of pragmatism, particularly through his engagement with Dewey's ideas. Putnam's views on truth and warrant are contrasted with Rorty's more relativistic approach, highlighting the intellectual quarrel between the two philosophers.

💡Warrant and Justification

Warrant and Justification refer to the reasons or grounds that support the truth of a belief or claim. In the video, these concepts are central to the debate between Rorty and Putnam. Rorty views warrant as a sociological notion, influenced by cultural and social contexts, whereas traditional pragmatists like Dewey did not adopt a relativistic view on warrant. This difference illustrates the broader philosophical divide between Neo-Pragmatism and classical pragmatism.

💡Cultural Relativism

Cultural Relativism is the idea that beliefs and values are relative to the cultural context in which they are found, and that no one culture's beliefs are superior to another's. In the video, Rorty is described as a cultural relativist concerning warrant and truth, which contrasts with the views of traditional pragmatists. This concept is pivotal in understanding the philosophical disagreements between Rorty and Putnam.

Highlights

Pragmatism was nearly dead by the 1950s, with minimal interest in Dewey except among a few former students.

Pragmatism was eclipsed by the positivist movement from the Vienna Circle and others in the 1930s.

The revival of pragmatism in the 1970s and 1980s was sparked by a quarrel between two American philosophers, Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty.

Neo-pragmatism, influenced by French literary criticism, moves away from traditional notions of truth and reality.

Rorty's view that philosophy is akin to literature is a clear reflection of postmodern thought.

Technical artifacts, like the Golden Gate Bridge, challenge the idea of infinite reinterpretability in pragmatism.

Rorty rejects the traditional philosophical goal of answering classic questions, viewing it as self-deception.

Philosophy is seen as a series of books that have influenced human thought and societal organization, rather than a science.

Putnam criticizes Rorty as a relativist, while Rorty counters that Putnam is the real relativist.

Both Putnam and Rorty are identified as pragmatists who realize that for pragmatism to thrive, it must reinterpret the Eurocentric tradition.

Rorty's contribution was significant in reviving interest in classical pragmatism, particularly the works of James.

Rorty is acknowledged for having a philosophy distinct from pragmatism, which is referred to as Rortyanism.

Pragmatism's future lies in reaching out to and integrating both analytic and continental philosophical traditions.

Rorty's philosophy challenges the classical pragmatist view on truth and justification, introducing a cultural relativist perspective.

The exchange between Putnam and Rorty highlights the evolution of pragmatism and its adaptation to contemporary philosophical challenges.

Transcripts

you know that pragmatism American

pragmatism for example was practically

dead by the end of the 40s and beginning

of the 1950s interest in do it was at

the absolute nator in America I mean it

was nobody was reading

deing except for some old um you know

former students there was it was

considered completely PR we look back

and we see this these high what we take

to be high points

we see James dwey Pur Royce and so forth

Emerson maybe thorough maybe but we

forget at the

time um say particularly in the

30s um these thinkers were being

eclipsed by the latest stuff from the

continent uh the Vienna Circle VOR

Christ

the the whole positivist uh movement and

it just happened to be revived in the

70s and 80s I think because of a of a

local and very small quarrel between two

American philosophers who were still

alive and practicing one Hillary putam

I'm Hillary putam and the other Richard

Ry richardy is uh a pragmatist in the

sense of of being a Neo pragmatist and

uh neopragmatism in this sense is uh a

movement which has been very heavily

influenced by French literary criticism

uh more specifically work from ja Daring

Do you know so when he says we should

stop talking about reality in the world

and truth and all those

categories it's a it's a clearest

statement that that anything uh that any

statement could be of of of the

postmodern mood so I think he like

captured that that extremely well and he

formulated extremely clearly uh the idea

here is that um you never really get

down to a point where you can say this

is a uh a point at which we can and or

which we can be successful in terms of

operation because there's an infinite

reinterpret ability called for now I

think this is a very important point in

in lit in the analysis of literature um

but in terms of say the philosophy of

Technology um in terms of uh inquiry

into the scci into the Sciences uh and

in fact in terms of everyday life we do

have certain platforms on which we can

stand they're not ultimate they're not

foundations we do have certain platforms

on which we can stand to be a ble to

build further platforms uh and to say

that for instance uh there needs to be

infinite reinterpret ability of the

Golden Gate Bridge uh I think is wrong

the fact is that that technical

artifacts uh have a certain kind of

warrant and they have a certain kind of

assertability uh that goes beyond the

kind of claim that's being made or the

kind of claims that are being made by

the uh the the uh those who accept those

strands of French uh uh postmodernism

into uh neoag into pragmatism that's

making Neo

pragmatism I would preferred just being

called a pragmatist instead of a Neo

pragmatist putam for example he spent a

lot of time with Dewey recently but even

prior to that there's a way in which we

might want to include some of his work

in this pragmatic tradition just because

of the way it's carried out the spirit

of How It's carried out what people call

neopragmatism

in my stuff and in Hillary butam stuff

for example

is linguis

toied pragmatism I don't call myself a

pragma for one thing I don't like the

pragmatist theory of Truth which they

were too proud of yes the quarrel

between Ry and Putnam is really

intriguing both of them became stars of

a certain kind representing opposite

points of

view plam represents the pole of

thinking which

says we're making slow progress toward

some kind of a valid and adequate

picture of all the philosophical

questions the classic questions are

still with us we're still working at it

there have been a lot of false starts

but we are making progress every

philosopher feels and this is a to the

credit of analytic philosophy that if

analytic philosophy didn't live up to

this great

dream that the new science or the new

science plus the New Logic the dream

that Russell very much felt for example

in the pre-World War I period if that

dream that philosophy that the new

science and the New Logic would solve

philosophical problems didn't pan out

nevertheless uh we learn more about why

and how how difficult they are and why

they're so difficult and that is maybe

the lasting philosophical progress we

have a deeper insight into the issues

and also we have more possibilities

which we have to sort out and Ry says

nonsense uh the game is

over the older conventional view that we

could answer the questions that classic

philosophy had press posed is just uh a

kind of self-deception

philosophy in that sense is over uh well

one of the people who's uh made that

claim at least implicitly is Richard gy

uh that that philosophy is a kind of

literature that uh that science is a

kind of literature um his more explicit

claim is that science is a kind of

literature but by extension uh I think

it's clear that uh that he regards

philosophy as a kind of literature and

and in fact there's no question that he

does privilege uh literature over

inquiry into the

Sciences when people ask what philosophy

is good

for I don't think one can do anything

except say philosophy is the following

series of books starting with Plato and

coming on down all those things that

whad called footnotes to

Plato um these books have influenced the

way human beings have thought of

themselves the way they've organized

themselves into social groups in various

was the people who are writing footnotes

to footnotes to footnotes to Plato are

making suggestions about how we might

think of ourselves how we might organize

Society but of course so were all the

other

intellectuals they're making the same

sorts of

suggestions philosophy is just

suggestions of this sort made by people

who have read certain books as opposed

to suggestions made by people who have

read other sets of

books the idea that philosophy is a

science which would finally answer the

question of knowledge the question of

reality the question of moral values all

things of that kind that's all gone now

then puam said of

Ry look you're a

spoiler you're a an anarchist you're a

um

nihilist or and here's the last dirty

word of the bunch you're a relativist

again Ry says and this he doesn't deny

having

said that's in print that uh as far as

I'm concerned the notion of Warrant

justification is a sociological

notion now no prag none of the classical

pragmas was a cultural relativist about

warrant and Ry is an explicit cultural

relativist about warrant and a skeptic

about truth and Ry says of

Putnam no my friend you're the

relativist I could have been but I was

clever enough to see that relativism is

an untenable position and I didn't ever

commit myself to a view which would have

Justified what you now say now it seems

to me that both Putnam and Ry were right

about the other but not right about

themselves

okay and that in the exchange between

them between Ry and putam it became

clear that both of them were pragmatists

of A

Sort and that they realized that if

pragmatism was going to have another

inning it would have to

be uh on the condition that pragmatism

would not be a as smug as it had been in

the past and would reach out to

reinterpret the rest of the eurocentric

tradition more fruitfully than it ever

had before in order to recover the

strongest

possibilities of analytic philosophy and

Continental philosophy and therefore

enrich pragmatism in a new way yeah he

did important job in getting people to

read the pragmatist again he was

influenced at getting me to read James

and to start teaching

James so I'm grateful to him for having

called attention to classical

pragmatism but he's uh and he's read

everything and but he has a philosophy

of his own which he rorian ism is a good

enough name he

doesn't call it pragmatism