Review Of Rorty's Arguments 'By Calling Philosophy' Edifying

395 Words1 Page

Surayyah Wolfe
PH 102
Professor Flynn
July 21, 2017
Unit 3
What does Rorty mean by calling philosophy “edifying”? What are the main arguments that have been raised against this view? Do you think the arguments or Rorty are right? Why? Why not?

By calling philosophy “edifying,” Rorty calls for a more historicistic and pluralistic point of view of reality. In line with historicism, Rorty wants people to view discussions in light of the time period in which those discussions took place; he wants to see how different time periods influence thought rather than pinpointing any fundamentals truth beyond all time periods. Philosophy of the current time will serve to edify since this time period is different from other time periods and will influence thought in a new way. In line with pluralism, Rorty does not want philosophers to agree on fundamentals truths, but wants philosophers to keep interpreting the world in different ways and reach new conclusions. Rorty wants philosophers to edify by breaking away from tradition and avoiding dogma. …show more content…

First, philosophers who have historicistic views disagree about the implications of such a philosophy. Those philosophers would argue that there is value in answering age-old debates like free-will vs determinism. Secondly, some argue that Rorty incorrectly rules out necessary truths. They would argue that Rorty’s philosophy is contradictory; Rorty seems to use necessary truth of his own to state that there are no necessary truths. Third, some argue that Rorty is a relativist and thinks that people can have absolute knowledge. They would say that Rorty thinks that truth is whatever is true for you. This argument says that Rorty believes that “truth is what my peers will let me get away with say” rather than what is objectively

Open Document