- 07 Mar 2021 18:25
#15159921
If you asked me to make a list of the 100 people that influenced Rorty, or were influenced by him, Dawkins wouldn't be on it.
This came up in a thread, but I wanted to discuss it here, free from the usual mess that is discussion here.
Dawkins is a militant atheist. I don't like them, and I don't see the point. I can understand the anger, but if your goal is to be a sophisticated intellectual, that's a half assed way to go about it.
I found a paper that goes into this, I've only read the index so far. But it's clear the guy isn't out to lunch, I'll take a deeper dive into it, and if he starts acting nuts; I'll let you know.
Stripped down to it's underwear, all Rorty is saying is he doesn't want to talk about it (religion). That's pretty much how I feel.
Pragmatists try to say philosophical things in non-philosophical language. It's a great idea, not so easy to pull off. One of the reasons he is regarded as one of the leading intellects of the 20th is he could make it look easy.
He is very much worth reading, but if you haven't read a bunch of philosophy (and at least some 20th Century philosophy) it is tough going. I've started books by him that were outside what I've looked at, I didn't make it all the way through.
If you read about him, you will find people being critical. Philosophy has a lot of different schools, what someone says outside the world of contemporary pragmatism is usually of no interest to me. Every philosophy, without exception, has strengths and weaknesses, you can nitpick anything.
I read this stuff 40 years ago, give or take a bit. So I sure philosophy has moved on, but I can't speak to that.
http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/91840/Rorty%20on%20Religion%20-%20Selman%20Nur%20-%20200320.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
This came up in a thread, but I wanted to discuss it here, free from the usual mess that is discussion here.
Dawkins is a militant atheist. I don't like them, and I don't see the point. I can understand the anger, but if your goal is to be a sophisticated intellectual, that's a half assed way to go about it.
I found a paper that goes into this, I've only read the index so far. But it's clear the guy isn't out to lunch, I'll take a deeper dive into it, and if he starts acting nuts; I'll let you know.
Stripped down to it's underwear, all Rorty is saying is he doesn't want to talk about it (religion). That's pretty much how I feel.
Pragmatists try to say philosophical things in non-philosophical language. It's a great idea, not so easy to pull off. One of the reasons he is regarded as one of the leading intellects of the 20th is he could make it look easy.
He is very much worth reading, but if you haven't read a bunch of philosophy (and at least some 20th Century philosophy) it is tough going. I've started books by him that were outside what I've looked at, I didn't make it all the way through.
If you read about him, you will find people being critical. Philosophy has a lot of different schools, what someone says outside the world of contemporary pragmatism is usually of no interest to me. Every philosophy, without exception, has strengths and weaknesses, you can nitpick anything.
I read this stuff 40 years ago, give or take a bit. So I sure philosophy has moved on, but I can't speak to that.
http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/91840/Rorty%20on%20Religion%20-%20Selman%20Nur%20-%20200320.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Last edited by late on 07 Mar 2021 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
Facts have a well known liberal bias
- By Tainari88
- By late
- By ingliz