I rgendwie a sympathetic book: As one of the leading pragmatists, a philosophical school which has, especially in the U.S. to its followers, wrote Richard Rorty, who sometimes was titling as the American Habermas, with " Contingency, Irony and Solidarity" a work that tries to philosophical pragmatism as a life-capable, socially valuable apply to life.
Right, because Rorty's philosophy and quite easy to understand with verve and a dash of humor is applying without dwelling on too long hostility towards other directions, but also in criticism of one's thinking.
Despite the hearts and minds closer to thought remains in the end, the suspicion that one afford the position of the ironist must above all: It is a philosophy of winning, even if Rorty wants to be sure they do not bring about Nietzschean stumbling blocks to case.
start, but we all over again: If you visit this blog often and have him hinuntergescrollt times down to the end will perhaps be pushed forward to a quote from Deleuze - the expected measured are the number of visitors, an estimated two people. Therefore, it is repeated here: The French philosopher once said, the task of philosophy is to create new terms. And he already has two things in common with Rorty: This view of philosophy and his preference for Proust, on the latter, we shall return.
But first to tag schaffen.Warum should be the task of philosophy, not the attainment of wisdom, truth, happiness? Clearly, modern philosophy has, in Plato's allegory of the cave further proved in many cases: the world may be, which is the case, but what is the case, always a matter of mediation. Because we learn nothing suddenly. So we can not be sure that the experience of what we, really is a good image of the case. Gives us the world through language. Of these, we are hooked. Now, if new terms are created, we can also not be sure whether they apt for the state of the world: But we have a decisive advantage. The world is the growth of the concepts (or metaphors, of which Rorty speaks rather) complex and in many ways we can align our lives in this world. Rorty celebrates the over-think through new concepts, by recapitulating the ripe age of existing opinions then to new beliefs (and here he refers also like to Proust). We are also already reached the ironist: For what remains one other than an ironic distance from the own thinking, as soon as one is aware that ideas, thoughts, language, the way the world has taught us any time could lose its validity?
This revision of opinions and rethinking the new the past is in Rorty's view of the world also what distinguishes a writer like Proust mainly.
The ironist does not undertake to rigid concepts, but playing with them. He can because he sees everything in the flow. The truth of the ironist is linked to time, perspective and the wider agreement within society. The ironist is so to speak, not the superman, but the stockbroker of philosophy. Even in thinking Nothing is permanent and everything is a question of timing.
But Rorty goes that far but then again. The pain of others or the duty to stop cruelty, is the crucial point where the irony ends. One view that is not ultimately founded. Nevertheless, the pain of a man seems to be the only criterion for action for Rorty.
With the introduction of the pain in his philosophizing Rorty draws to some extent, the philiosophische emergency: it is ultimately the only thing that Rorty prevents them straight to race in total relativism. But Rorty's thinking will remain some other issues: Who defines that the suffering of others? Themselves? The majority opinion? At what point can speak of suffering? Where it starts then?
Rorty's liberal ironist , it must be a likeable guy: Maybe the withdrawal in an armchair, celebrates drinking red wine, a Nabokov on his lap. With a laughing and a crying eye.
start, but we all over again: If you visit this blog often and have him hinuntergescrollt times down to the end will perhaps be pushed forward to a quote from Deleuze - the expected measured are the number of visitors, an estimated two people. Therefore, it is repeated here: The French philosopher once said, the task of philosophy is to create new terms. And he already has two things in common with Rorty: This view of philosophy and his preference for Proust, on the latter, we shall return.
But first to tag schaffen.Warum should be the task of philosophy, not the attainment of wisdom, truth, happiness? Clearly, modern philosophy has, in Plato's allegory of the cave further proved in many cases: the world may be, which is the case, but what is the case, always a matter of mediation. Because we learn nothing suddenly. So we can not be sure that the experience of what we, really is a good image of the case. Gives us the world through language. Of these, we are hooked. Now, if new terms are created, we can also not be sure whether they apt for the state of the world: But we have a decisive advantage. The world is the growth of the concepts (or metaphors, of which Rorty speaks rather) complex and in many ways we can align our lives in this world. Rorty celebrates the over-think through new concepts, by recapitulating the ripe age of existing opinions then to new beliefs (and here he refers also like to Proust). We are also already reached the ironist: For what remains one other than an ironic distance from the own thinking, as soon as one is aware that ideas, thoughts, language, the way the world has taught us any time could lose its validity?
This revision of opinions and rethinking the new the past is in Rorty's view of the world also what distinguishes a writer like Proust mainly.
The ironist does not undertake to rigid concepts, but playing with them. He can because he sees everything in the flow. The truth of the ironist is linked to time, perspective and the wider agreement within society. The ironist is so to speak, not the superman, but the stockbroker of philosophy. Even in thinking Nothing is permanent and everything is a question of timing.
But Rorty goes that far but then again. The pain of others or the duty to stop cruelty, is the crucial point where the irony ends. One view that is not ultimately founded. Nevertheless, the pain of a man seems to be the only criterion for action for Rorty.
With the introduction of the pain in his philosophizing Rorty draws to some extent, the philiosophische emergency: it is ultimately the only thing that Rorty prevents them straight to race in total relativism. But Rorty's thinking will remain some other issues: Who defines that the suffering of others? Themselves? The majority opinion? At what point can speak of suffering? Where it starts then?
Rorty's liberal ironist , it must be a likeable guy: Maybe the withdrawal in an armchair, celebrates drinking red wine, a Nabokov on his lap. With a laughing and a crying eye.
0 comments:
Post a Comment