17 June 2007


As Dan Green mentioned,
[B]eware the inevitable obituaries and other discussions of Rorty's contributions to philosophy that will bemoan his malign influence as a "relativist." Its all bs.
Scott McLemee's provides additional insight:
“My sense of the holy,” wrote Rorty, “insofar as I have one, is bound up with the hope that someday, any millennium now, my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is pretty much the only law. In such a society, communication would be domination-free, class and caste would be unknown, hierarchy would be a matter of temporary pragmatic convenience, and power would be entirely at the disposal of the free agreement of a literate and well-educated electorate.”
Rorty admits he has “no idea of how such a society could come about. It is, one might say, a mystery. This mystery, like that of the Incarnation, concerns the coming into existence of a love that is kind, patient, and endures all things.” As McLemee concludes,
I’m not sure whether that counts as a religious vision, by most standards. But it certainly qualifies as something that requires a lot of faith.

No comments: