The Putnam-Rorty Debate and the Pragmatist Revival
Summary
TLDRThe 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
🔍 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.
📚 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Pragmatism
💡Neo-Pragmatism
💡Vienna Circle
💡Linguistic Pragmatism
💡Postmodernism
💡Analytic Philosophy
💡Richard Rorty
💡Hilary Putnam
💡Warrant and Justification
💡Cultural Relativism
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
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
Pragmatism as a Philosophy of Research
Different Eras in Philosophy
Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as Way of Life | Spiritual Exercises & Philosophy | Core Concepts
Filosofia e educação: Sócrates, Platão e Aristóteles
Every Philosophical Ideology Explained in 9 Minutes
The History of Philosophy! PART 1 - How Philosophy Started
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)