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.