Too reductive. It's more complicated. I would ALWAYS look with an eye of skepticism (and contempt sometimes) to the claim that epistemology should have political assumptions.
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT I suspect you don't get what he means. We can't tell the difference between "appearance" and "reality." Which means epistemology is not showing us what is "real." Rather its just another human activity where we convince each other that certain behaviors are more useful than others.
@@Sam-_- Not if you follow Rorty. His whole point is that there is only one human endeavor - the attempt to convince other people to adopt your way of thinking. Scientists use sense data and make arguments, etc., but there is nothing about what they do that is different from any other person. Epistemology isn't a way of perceiving "what is real," but rather another example of humans deciding what to do based on the utility they perceive in their actions.
Is what he is saying a true picture of the reality of philosophy, or just a pragmatic arrangement for his own ends? If the former, he contradicts himself. If the latter, why should we believe him? All scepticism falls upon its own Epistemological-Tu-Quoque sword.
perhaps, but they are not exactly writing books. And even if they were, the point here is they would not be writing OUR books. "If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand it." - Wittgenstein.
anthropocentric - ăn″thrə-pə-sĕn′trĭk adjective 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
@@planetvegan7843 What do you think an animal would tell you if you asked how it was doing? Do you think you would understand it's reply? If Yes, then you think the animal's response would be in human terms, thus you are being anthropocentric. And if No, then what is preventing the communication - wouldn't it be precisely that your communication is unique to you, as a human, i.e. that you are anthropocentric?
okay then can you tell me what this is called? what is the study to figure out which language is allow you to do more than others? on which language is are the tops?
@@WilliamofOckham990 or it could be that it’s self evident to most people that human beings are, while animals, quite distinct from all other animals and then start trying to figure out just what it is exactly that makes us distinct from other animals. The most obvious is our rationality, hence Aristotle’s definition of man as a rational animal.
@@tchristian04 It isn’t self evident, and self evident doesn’t mean true, pretty much all evidence shows that human beings are just another kind of animal. Aristotle lived 2500 years ago and though a genius he’s not a scientific authority.
@@tchristian04 But that is not to say that animals are not rational, but only that to whatever extent animals have "rationality," we don't understand what it is. OP's point is more than just psychoanalysis - "meaning" is a linguistic term. And linguistics depends on "difference." And to notice difference is to notice what is "special." It is indeed strange that we use words to declare that humans are like words in order to express our feelings.
How about admitting the fact that there's nothing special about people. Our language faculty is special to us because WE value it from the viewpoint of what serves us.
epistemology is a subset of ethics is a subset of politics - R. Rorty.
Too reductive. It's more complicated. I would ALWAYS look with an eye of skepticism (and contempt sometimes) to the claim that epistemology should have political assumptions.
@@GottfriedLeibnizYT I suspect you don't get what he means. We can't tell the difference between "appearance" and "reality." Which means epistemology is not showing us what is "real." Rather its just another human activity where we convince each other that certain behaviors are more useful than others.
Isn’t epistemology primary?
@@Sam-_- Not if you follow Rorty. His whole point is that there is only one human endeavor - the attempt to convince other people to adopt your way of thinking. Scientists use sense data and make arguments, etc., but there is nothing about what they do that is different from any other person. Epistemology isn't a way of perceiving "what is real," but rather another example of humans deciding what to do based on the utility they perceive in their actions.
Wow. He said it all, perfectly. What a masterpiece.
Rorty was awesome.
I want to see the full interview that this is extracted from
Is what he is saying a true picture of the reality of philosophy, or just a pragmatic arrangement for his own ends? If the former, he contradicts himself. If the latter, why should we believe him? All scepticism falls upon its own Epistemological-Tu-Quoque sword.
Animals have language.
perhaps, but they are not exactly writing books. And even if they were, the point here is they would not be writing OUR books. "If a lion could talk, we wouldn't understand it." - Wittgenstein.
anthropocentric -
ăn″thrə-pə-sĕn′trĭk
adjective
1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
@@planetvegan7843 What do you think an animal would tell you if you asked how it was doing? Do you think you would understand it's reply? If Yes, then you think the animal's response would be in human terms, thus you are being anthropocentric. And if No, then what is preventing the communication - wouldn't it be precisely that your communication is unique to you, as a human, i.e. that you are anthropocentric?
Lolz
okay then can you tell me what this is called? what is the study to figure out which language is allow you to do more than others? on which language is are the tops?
“What is it that’s special about people?” We have the power to kick everybody else’s ass and do pretty much whatever we want with impunity. Obviously.
I find him completely obnoxious
I think that it’s strange that we need something special about our species to feel meaningful as individuals
You're psychoanalyzing a strawman.
@@tchristian04 No, it is true that people often resist the idea that human beings are just another animal.
@@WilliamofOckham990 or it could be that it’s self evident to most people that human beings are, while animals, quite distinct from all other animals and then start trying to figure out just what it is exactly that makes us distinct from other animals. The most obvious is our rationality, hence Aristotle’s definition of man as a rational animal.
@@tchristian04 It isn’t self evident, and self evident doesn’t mean true, pretty much all evidence shows that human beings are just another kind of animal. Aristotle lived 2500 years ago and though a genius he’s not a scientific authority.
@@tchristian04 But that is not to say that animals are not rational, but only that to whatever extent animals have "rationality," we don't understand what it is. OP's point is more than just psychoanalysis - "meaning" is a linguistic term. And linguistics depends on "difference." And to notice difference is to notice what is "special." It is indeed strange that we use words to declare that humans are like words in order to express our feelings.
Could you please be so kind to upload the full interview or redirect me to where I can find this interview please?
Humans arent the only animals with language.
oh yeah. that's Rorty doing what he does, such a concise summary of most of his most important views. which interview is this piece from?
the language just has to incite an objective or universal concept, it is a tool or a means
love love love
The cop out of the century
How about admitting the fact that there's nothing special about people. Our language faculty is special to us because WE value it from the viewpoint of what serves us.