Rorty’s Logic and Epistemology just Buddhist Logic and Epistemology?: Philosophy Forums

Page: 1 2 3

Rorty’s Logic and Epistemology just Buddhist Logic and Epistemology?

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 02/22/03 - 12:20 PM:	#1
Reading a previous thread, “A Critique of Rorty's analysis of Modern Epistemology”, led me to wonder if Rorty’s Logic and Epistemology was not closer to Buddhist Logic and Epistemology than any other. Although the Upanishadic texts (like some of the earlier Vedic texts) are primarily concerned with acquiring knowledge of the "soul", "spirit" and "god" - there are aspects of Vedic and Upanishadic literature that also point to an intuitive understanding of nature and natural processes. “The Upanishadic philosophers did not lay down their conclusions as rigid doctrines or inviolable laws but as seductive parables - sometimes displaying remarkable worldly insight and analytical skill. By attempting to win over their followers through analogies from nature, and by employing the methods of abstract reasoning and debate, they created an environment where dialectical thinking and intellectual exchanges could later flourish.” authored in Arabic by Said al-Andalusi by Alok Kumar/S.I. Salem
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 02/22/03 - 05:30 PM:	#2
Somehow, I don't think Rorty would be too happy with this connection, but I wonder if you could draw it out a bit more. Rorty would probably point to the pointless nature of all that speculative dialectical conversation (he is a Pragmatist after all), but argue that if you're having fun (he uses the term therapuetic), it's okay.

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 02/23/03 - 09:19 AM:	#3
Brad, it was intended to be sardonic in a very light-heartedly way. Rorty wants to convince us epistemology should be abandoned, and somehow science will lead to the truth which philosophy has failed to do. The quest for Rorty seems to be the quest for ultimate answers to all of the why questions philosophy has been unable to answer. To quote you, “unlock the magic secrets of mind.” So far as I know, religion and spirituality are the only one to have done this. It makes me wonder if science too must become a religion in order to accomplish this.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Hugo Holbling
Galileisti

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2003
Location: Trapped in Kirilov's dilemma
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 131

Posted 02/23/03 - 01:22 PM:	#4
Originally posted by darkcrow *The quest for Rorty seems to be the quest for ultimate answers to all of the why* questions philosophy has been unable to answer.** Would you mind pointing me to those works of Rorty from which you draw this reading? I don't recall him saying or implying anything of the sort.
Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel. - Herberger

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 02/23/03 - 02:57 PM:	#5
Yeah, Rorty pretty much says the opposite. He argues that the questions themselves are worthless. Uh, where did I say the "magic secrets of the mind". If I was talking about Rorty, I must have been being facetious. Hmmm, I think I talked about Rorty's tone there. Maybe you're referring to that?

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 02/23/03 - 04:29 PM:	#6
Although I am in agreement with Rorty in some of the things he rants about, I am not in agreement about what should be done about them. His railing about replacing absolutes, for instance with; absolutes being absolutely impossible. Here it seems is his answer to all the why questions, there is no answer. I have, what I believe, a better solution, perhaps I will explore it more in another thread. So far as the Buddhism analogy: I quote Rorty here, “A fully humanist culture, of the sort I envisage, will emerge only when we discard the question “Do I know the real object, or only one of its appearances?” and replace it with the question “Am I using the best possible description of the situation in which I find myself, or can I cobble together a better one?” The only difference I can see between the two questions is that the one he proposes has sort of a western Zen like mysticism about it. A kind of " humanistic revival of learning" as Rorty might say.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 02/23/03 - 05:28 PM:	#7
Hmmmmm
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Hugo Holbling
Galileisti

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 25, 2003
Location: Trapped in Kirilov's dilemma
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 131

Posted 02/24/03 - 12:24 PM:	#8
You'll have to pardon my stupidity again but i'm not following this tenuous link between Rorty's epistemology and Zen. Where is the mysticism in the second question? Perhaps if you explained how you came by this idea in the first place it might help us understand what you're driving at?
Nach dem Spiel ist vor dem Spiel. - Herberger

darkcrow
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 08, 2003
Location: San Diego
Total Topics: 97
Total Posts: 59

Posted 02/24/03 - 02:37 PM:	#9
I will start by acknowledging that I am not an authority on Richard Rorty’s works; although I have read “A pragmatist view of contemporary analytic philosophy”, “ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY AND TRANSFORMATIVE PHILOSOPHY”, as well as some reviews by others and his responses. What I based the comparison on, of Rorty’s Epistemology, and Buddhist Epistemology, was that each believes truth can be better found in story’s and metaphors.
"To the success of our hopeless task."

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 02/24/03 - 07:18 PM:	#10
I can say quite equivocally and with complete and utter ambiguity that Rorty's concept of truth (which follows Davidson's) and the Zen concept of truth, or what is perceived as the Zen concept of truth, are quite different. Now, is that clear?

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.