On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:23:51 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 1/12/2019 3:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:25:55 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 1/11/2019 2:36 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> Of course there are math professors (Dr. Z at Rutgers) who teach on >> >> the evils of Platonism. And "Truth" is like God, as Rorty said. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > That is a good summary of Plato. Hirsschberger sum up Plato by saying >> > that the God of Plato is Truth. Not the one we make public, but the >> > one we search. >> > >> > Now, all my life I have got the feeling that Plato is dismissed, and >> > badly seen, notably in opposition to Aristotle. But Aristotle did not >> > understood Plato, except in a curious passage of the “metaphysics” >> > where he seems to suddenly got the point, and seems to come back to >> > Plato without saying (but that is an optimistic reading of Aristotle’s >> > metaphysics, To be sure I found some scholars who saw that too, like >> > Gerson. >> > >> > That "truth is God" makes sense for a computationalist, because >> > “truth” when encompassing the description of a machine at its correct >> > substitution level, is no more definable by that machine. Yes, Truth, >> > and semantics, is very much like the platonician notion of God. You >> > force me to agree with Rorty on this! >> > >> >> At the same time Rorty said,"Truth is like God" he was a "strict >> atheist". He was also a pragmatist, meaning he thought the measure of >> truth was solely whether it worked. So I'd gather that Rorty didn't >> think that "truth" was very useful idea; which is confirmed by him being >> called an "ironist" by his friends. >> >> Brent >> > > He was called a "boring" atheist. > > > By Danny Postel. But from Habermas: > > * His colleague Jürgen Habermas's obituary for Rorty points out that > Rorty's contrasting childhood experiences, such as beautiful orchids versus > reading a book in his parents' house that defended Leon Trotsky against > Stalin, created an early interest in philosophy. He describes Rorty as an > ironist:* > > *"Nothing is sacred to Rorty the ironist. Asked at the end of his life > about the 'holy', the strict atheist answered with words reminiscent of the > young Hegel: 'My sense of the holy is bound up with the hope that some day > my remote descendants will live in a global civilization in which love is > pretty much the only law.'"* > > Brent > > > > http://www.pragmatismtoday.eu/summer2012/Madzia-Richard_Rorty_An_Ethics_for_Today_Finding_Common_Ground_between_Philosophy_and_Religion.pdf > > > *Danny Postel once wrote that Richard Rorty can be* > *probably best described as a "boring atheist.” Now, can* > *we hear anything interesting about religion from a* > *boring atheist? In the case of Rorty, we surely can, at* > *least in two respects: a) by reading his papers on religion* > *we can get a picture of his opinions on the role of* > *religious experience in the lives of human beings that is* > *far from trivial; b) by using "redescription” as Rorty’s* > *most powerful weapon in advancing our intellectual and* > *moral standards, we can reformulate some of his ideas* > *as being able to enter a conversation with the kind of* > *thinking known as postmodern Christianity (or weak* > *theology being its instance). Rorty’s atheism definitely* > *does not fall into the same category as the atheism of* > *Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett. Rorty seems to* > *perfectly understand the broadness of religious* > *experience and its various contexts, although, for* > *himself, religion is not a live option. His growing* > *willingness to enter into debate with religion, as we saw* > *it in the last several years of his life, is supposedly an* > *inevitable conclusion of contentions published in his* > *earlier papers where he called religion a "conversationstopper.” * > *It may well be the case that religion sometimes* > *is a conversation-stopper, but as Rorty himself holds, it is * > *our (philosophers’) responsibility to maintain the* > *discussion even with these sometimes "unwilling” forms* > *of discourse. Since we know that when discussion* > *ceases, other forms of persuasion come into play, we* > *must make sure it will carry on. * > > > > *Rorty: On Truth* > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY > > - pt > > "*Ironist, *a term coined by Richard Rorty <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty>" (in *Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity*)
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironism ] Rorty was the one saying who the Ironists were! In *Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency,_Irony,_and_Solidarity>*, Rorty argues that Proust <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proust>, Nietzsche <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche>, Foucault <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault>, Heidegger <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegger>, Derrida <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrida>, and Nabokov <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Vladimirovich_Nabokov>, among others, all exemplify Ironism to different extents. - pt -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.