I don't get it. How can you avoid being responsible to reality. If your idea will turn out not to work, then how can it not be said that it failed to respond to something that objectively exists - reality?
Rorty never really had anything to say about reality without a capital R. The issue for him has always been Reality, the capitalized version, the Reality to which we have supposed to somehow be submitted.
I will assert the obvious, yet minority position that language is NOT like learning to ride a bicycle. We know that a baby (even before birth) can and does discern the complex sets of unorganized date with no reference point of understanding what does and does not constitutes language and then can eventually replicate it is completely unknown and hardly studied. How does this happen? The assertion that learning a language is like learning to ride a bicycle assumes that one knows before hand what is a bicycle. How does the baby know what a bicycle is, how it is used, why it is used, and learn this mechanism so quickly? There are no answers to this question, thus Rorty and Davidson's analogy is groundless. Oh, I have seen bears ride bicycles but have never talked to one.
Hi Jim, I understood this comparison in such a way that learning a language is at the end as *mysterious* as learning to ride a bike. You are right: how a baby does this is hardly studied and there a lot of sciencentific results remain to be discovered. But as soon as you make a philosophical fuss out of it, you are lost.
Rorty was unkind in the beginning. But in the end he gives credit to Davidson. Its good to know even a asshole like Rorty has a heart for his teacher. The argument began to get some grit when Davidson mentions: communication of two people and how they react. This is in large part by the tacit understanding of reason and truth between two or more communicator. Tho for me what I have found interesting was in the ending. Davidson shows the rough edges of Truth. While Davidson reveals the project which are perhaps not completely consistence. Rorty is consistent. But how worthless he is. People like Davidson shows why philosophers become interested in the subject. Metaphor is a good example. Davidson just cuts out the entire project of metaphor. BTW someone got to explain to me: "p" is true if and only if q. Sweeping philosophical mechanism.
What I like Davidson is that he begins with the rationality of "I". Truth for him runs through his arguments. Rorty is streamline but he doesn't say anything. There is no device that carries his thoughts.
Thnx for Uploading!
I love the decor
excellent!! cf bjorn ramberg's discussion of these two guys....
Thanks for the upload. Do you have any other videos from the same series (e.g., Quine's and Strawson's)?
Fantastic.
amazing video!
where and when was this filmed?
+axlrosea675 it looks like York University, 1997
copac.jisc.ac.uk/id/35716694?style=html
lonelycubicle Thank you!
It is filmed on Davidson's House in Berkeley, California.
40:00
I don't get it. How can you avoid being responsible to reality. If your idea will turn out not to work, then how can it not be said that it failed to respond to something that objectively exists - reality?
Rorty never really had anything to say about reality without a capital R. The issue for him has always been Reality, the capitalized version, the Reality to which we have supposed to somehow be submitted.
Can somebody translate this video to Spanish? Thanks.
grAND b e y o n d GReat!!!! comment vivre sans inconnu devant soi? t h a n k s -bud
Great ⁰philosp⁰her
act don't comment
Poor rorty was really frustrated.. It makesme really dpressed thinking that such an intellectual probably died being so very unhappy
+v savage How on Earth did you get to that conclusion? To me, he looks utterly phlegmatic.
I will assert the obvious, yet minority position that language is NOT like learning to ride a bicycle. We know that a baby (even before birth) can and does discern the complex sets of unorganized date with no reference point of understanding what does and does not constitutes language and then can eventually replicate it is completely unknown and hardly studied. How does this happen? The assertion that learning a language is like learning to ride a bicycle assumes that one knows before hand what is a bicycle. How does the baby know what a bicycle is, how it is used, why it is used, and learn this mechanism so quickly? There are no answers to this question, thus Rorty and Davidson's analogy is groundless.
Oh, I have seen bears ride bicycles but have never talked to one.
Hi Jim,
I understood this comparison in such a way that learning a language is at the end as *mysterious* as learning to ride a bike. You are right: how a baby does this is hardly studied and there a lot of sciencentific results remain to be discovered. But as soon as you make a philosophical fuss out of it, you are lost.
"Frege re-Kantized anglophone philosophy" but had no need of Kant ...
jhaponline.org/jhap/article/view/44/2475
@@jrshipley most savage response I've seen in the philosophy community on UA-cam
observations re language are of stunning superficiality and stupidity
Rorty was unkind in the beginning. But in the end he gives credit to Davidson. Its good to know even a asshole like Rorty has a heart for his teacher. The argument began to get some grit when Davidson mentions: communication of two people and how they react. This is in large part by the tacit understanding of reason and truth between two or more communicator. Tho for me what I have found interesting was in the ending. Davidson shows the rough edges of Truth. While Davidson reveals the project which are perhaps not completely consistence. Rorty is consistent. But how worthless he is. People like Davidson shows why philosophers become interested in the subject. Metaphor is a good example. Davidson just cuts out the entire project of metaphor. BTW someone got to explain to me: "p" is true if and only if q. Sweeping philosophical mechanism.
What I like Davidson is that he begins with the rationality of "I". Truth for him runs through his arguments. Rorty is streamline but he doesn't say anything. There is no device that carries his thoughts.