Richard Rorty 1997 on Democracy and Philosophy

Summary

Highlights

• Rorty sees himself as a philosopher aligned with pragmatism, challenging the traditional norms of philosophy. 🤓
• He suggests philosophy should help democracy by breaking through conventions, not establishing firm morals. 🎯
• Dewey’s idea of democracy self-assessing rather than relying on set principles resonates with Rorty. 🗳️
• Rorty tackles contentious issues like the death penalty, abortion, and affirmative action through a pragmatic lens. 🌐
• The conversation highlights philosophical debates on truth, education, and democracy's self-governance. ✨

Key Takeaways

• Richard Rorty challenges traditional philosophy, focusing instead on practical impacts on culture and society. 📚
• Rorty sees pragmatism as a tool to enhance democracy, aligning with Dewey’s idea of adaptability and practical outcomes. 🇺🇸
• Philosophy, according to Rorty, should disrupt conventional thinking and adapt to democratic needs. 🔄
• The debate between moral absolutism and pragmatism highlights the fluid nature of societal ethics. ⚖️
• Complex issues like abortion and affirmative action reflect the nuanced application of pragmatic philosophy in democracy. 🤔

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 01:00: Introduction and Background on Richard Rorty The chapter introduces Richard Rorty, a prominent philosopher from the University of Virginia, highlighting his influence in the United States. The context is set in an interview for the Austin Ideas series, where Rorty is visiting for a meeting with Austin Interfaith. The conversation involves Noel McAfee, a graduate student in philosophy and associate editor of the Kettering Review, who shares his admiration for Rorty's philosophical contributions.
• 01:00 - 04:00: Rorty's View on Philosophy and Pragmatism This chapter discusses Richard Rorty's unconventional approach to philosophy. The New York Times in 1990 described him as the most influential contemporary American philosopher, despite not adhering to traditional philosophical methods. The chapter explores whether this characterization is fair, reflecting on Rorty's unique contributions to pragmatism and philosophy without following traditional norms.
• 04:00 - 06:00: Discussion on Philosophy's Role in Democracy The chapter discusses the traditional role of philosophy, using figures like Plato and Kant as examples. These philosophers are known for laying the foundational aspects of human life, social institutions, and traditions. However, the speaker expresses a belief that philosophy may not necessarily provide these foundations, suggesting a different understanding or role for philosophy, especially when considering its place and function in a democratic context.
• 06:00 - 09:00: Challenges in Moral Philosophy and Pragmatism The chapter delves into the broad nature of philosophy, emphasizing its all-encompassing scope where essentially any intellectual can be considered a philosopher. The discussion centers around the influence of various philosophical ideas on modern culture, highlighting the role of pragmatism in contemporary thought. The speaker identifies as a pragmatist and expresses admiration for John Dewey, suggesting an inclination towards Dewey's philosophical approach.
• 09:00 - 11:00: Debate on Death Penalty and Public Opinion This chapter discusses Dewey's approach to philosophy with a focus on its practical application to American democracy. Rather than searching for philosophical foundations of democracy, Dewey is interested in what philosophy can contribute to the democratic process. The discussion highlights Dewey's method of applying philosophical inquiry to practical and civic matters, which includes traditional topics like truth, knowledge, and rationality.
• 11:00 - 13:00: Pragmatism and Self-Confidence The chapter titled 'Pragmatism and Self-Confidence' discusses the role of philosophy in enhancing American democracy. It emphasizes the need to challenge conventional wisdom. John Dewey's philosophy is highlighted, noting that he was often criticized as a relativist and internationalist for not adhering to firm moral principles. Dewey believed in breaking through established norms to advance societal progress.
• 13:00 - 16:00: Pragmatism vs. Enlightenment Rationalism The chapter discusses the contrast between pragmatism and Enlightenment rationalism. It highlights that pragmatism focuses on the consequences of social practices rather than adhering strictly to abstract principles. For instance, in the context of contentious issues like abortion, pragmatism implies that decisions should be guided by the practical outcomes rather than rigid principles. The discussion critiques the reliance on principles alone, suggesting that they serve more as guides rather than justifications for social practices.
• 16:00 - 19:00: Objectivity in Moral and Political Judgments The chapter discusses the objectivity involved in moral and political judgments, particularly focusing on the issue of abortion. It contrasts two philosophical perspectives—one that considers human life as sacred and demands respect for the fetus as human life, and another, inspired by Mill, that encourages maximizing human happiness, which could imply supporting abortion on demand. The chapter highlights the dilemma individuals face between these viewpoints and mentions the tendency for people to adopt a compromise, such as considering the fetus non-human until a certain point, despite the lack of a solid argument for such a stance.
• 19:00 - 23:00: Affirmative Action and Social Justice This chapter discusses the philosophical perspectives of John Dewey on compromise in democracy. Dewey believed that democracy involves making compromises which might sometimes appear unprincipled, but could be justified if they are accepted by an educated and informed public. The chapter also introduces the ideas of Habermas, who is considered a modern equivalent to Dewey in German philosophy.
• 23:00 - 26:00: Clash of Cultures: Enlightenment vs. Fundamentalism The chapter titled 'Clash of Cultures: Enlightenment vs. Fundamentalism' discusses the concept of truth in communication. It suggests that truth is reached in an 'ideal communication situation.' This situation involves educated, informed people who are not influenced by threats or harassment. The essence is a dialogue where participants listen to each other, exchange ideas, and deliberate over issues extensively, echoing the thoughts of thinkers like Habermas.
• 26:00 - 31:00: Narratives, Human Nature, and Cultural Differences The chapter discusses the idea that if education and political freedom are managed properly, truth will naturally emerge. It references Dewey's philosophy that a democratic community is only accountable to itself, highlighting the complexity of this idea when applied to real-world situations. An example given is a deliberative opinion poll in England, focusing on the topic of crime, showcasing differing cultural approaches to the issue.
• 31:00 - 33:00: Speculative Future and Class Divisions In the chapter titled 'Speculative Future and Class Divisions,' the discussion revolves around the public's agitation about the state of the country, focusing on issues such as the economy and national threats. There is a contentious dialogue regarding criminal justice, with a significant portion of the population desiring the return of the death penalty and harsher punitive measures. This highlights a divide between governmental policies and public sentiment, reflecting broader themes of speculative futures and class tensions within society.
• 33:00 - 35:00: Concluding Thoughts on Redistribution and Community This chapter discusses the moral and ethical judgment concerning the death penalty. It highlights the complexity of deciding whether the populace is adequately informed or educated about such issues. The author questions how one determines when people are sufficiently informed, and points out that the death penalty has historically not been abolished by popular demand.

Richard Rorty 1997 on Democracy and Philosophy Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 now it's time for our Austin ideas interview University of Virginia professor Richard Rorty is considered one of the most influential philosophers in the United States we had a good fortune of visiting with dr. Rorty when he was in town recently for a meeting with Austin interfaith doctor already talked with guest host Noel McAfee a graduate student philosophy and associate editor of the Kettering review the Journal of the fitter the Kettering foundation in my area I study philosophy and in my area you're one of the most
• 00:30 - 01:00 famous people in this country if not in the world who practices philosophy but it's kind of funny because the New York Times quoted a has a little quotes under the New York Times said in 1990 about you they said Richard Rorty has become the most influential contemporary American philosopher by not offering any philosophy that is at least in the traditional sense it's kind of funny I mean they're saying that you do philosophy but you don't really offer any do you think that this is a fair
• 01:00 - 01:30 assessment or that I can sort of see what they mean there's a traditional conception of philosophy as exemplified by people like Plato and cond who are thought of as putting putting foundations under human life or social institutions or traditions or something uh and in that sense I'm you know since I don't think philosophy can provide foundations I guess I'm not doing philosophy there's another sense of
• 01:30 - 02:00 philosophy in which it's just talking about how things in general hang together and in that sense practically any intellectual counts as a philosopher and what I do is mainly talking about the way in which various philosophical ideas have worked on culture in recent times in terms of what your philosophy might be it I think he'd call it pragmatism yeah I'd like to think that I'm a follower of Dewey
• 02:00 - 02:30 um what I like about Dewey was that he sort of asked himself what what can philosophy do for American democracy instead of saying what's the philosophical foundations for democracy and I think if Dewey as asking given that we're American Democrats what would be the appropriate thing for us to say about traditional philosophical topics like truth knowledge rationality and so on that
• 02:30 - 03:00 seems to me the right spirit to go about so what can philosophy do for American democracy um mainly I think just a break through the crust of Convention as do we put it for example uh it's often said you got to have firm moral principles otherwise you know you're a relativistic rationalist and so on Dewey was always accused of being a relativist an internationalist because he didn't have firm moral
• 03:00 - 03:30 principles he in modern jargon I suppose you'd call him a situation ethics person his line was principles are all very well as sort of reminders of social practices but they can't justify social practices nothing can justify a social practice except the consequences of well it would be an example of that and that's kind of an abstract way of talking well think about something like abortion um you try to figure out where you stand on abortion can't tells you
• 03:30 - 04:00 human life is sacred you must never do anything to impugn human dignity that inclines you to respect the fetus is a human life mill tells you to maximize human happiness which suggests you ought to allow abortion on demand there you are stuck between mill and con uh what people do is work out some wishy-washy compromise like you know okay the fetus isn't human until three months or something nobody has any you know argument was a fetus isn't human until three months it's just you know it's just the kind of compromise people can
• 04:00 - 04:30 live with and Dewey was a philosopher who said yeah that's the way it ought to work and you know that's that kind of wishy-washy compromise is okay it's what he'd expect in a democracy and if it looks unprincipled okay it looks on principle and so practically speaking how do you know whether it's okay um I think Dewey's only test is a dozen educated in warm public find it acceptable you're gonna have a mosque the sort of the German equivalent of do we nowadays says
• 04:30 - 05:00 that you know and so far as you can give a definition of truth it's what's arrived at in the ideal communication situation where the ideal communications situation means something like of educated people informed people not threatened by anything not harassed um talking to one another listening to each other's point of view hashing things over endlessly doing in harbor Maas are both saying if that doesn't arrive at
• 05:00 - 05:30 the truth you know nothing ever will so if we take care of Education and political freedom truth will take care of itself what I like about Dewey is that suggestion that there's nothing that a democratic community is answerable to except itself yes it's when you get it when you get into practical situations it gets really sticky I was at a a deliberative opinion poll in England several years ago and the topic under consideration was crime and in England they're opposed to the I
• 05:30 - 06:00 mean the government says no death penalty there's no death penalty the people in England were ready to bring it back they want to start flogging criminals they're really upset about what the state of the country the economy what's the threats that the door they want to do something about it and even though during the course of this reason dialogue for a couple three days they became a little bit more open-minded and not ready to throw everybody in prison they were still all for the death penalty wanting to bring it back and you know if Hamas is right
• 06:00 - 06:30 here if you know whatever they come to is true I mean in terms of a moral judgment is that true that they ought to bring back the death penalty yeah it's in that that's a very good way of putting the problem however must undo we are going to have to say okay they're not yet sufficiently inform not yet sufficiently educated but of course that begs all the question I mean how do you know what that insufficient are the only sufficiently informed when they agree with you the death penalty and as far as I know has never actually been abolished in any country by popular demand the
• 06:30 - 07:00 it's been abolished always from on top because the educated classes have decided can't stand it anymore the uneducated classes are then it gets fine here we are in Texas where I think it's 98% of the people are in favor of the death penalty many of whom are educated so it gets tough I mean we're deciding how to ground a moral judgment really but okay let's go back to pragmatism do you think pragmatism can make people better citizens I think it can do something to
• 07:00 - 07:30 give them confidence in themselves if you think of the Enlightenment of the 18th century and the secularization produced by the Enlightenment as a period in which people were to look there isn't a source of authority not the king is not the priests you're just gonna have to work it out for yourselves I think a pragmatism as carrying through on the Enlightenment and saying you know
• 07:30 - 08:00 human beings are alone in the universe they're they can't look outside themselves either for comfort or for principles or for inspiration they're at their best when they work together so I think a pragmatism as sort of an extension of the secularism and rationalism of the Enlightenment one way to think of it is the Enlightenment said
• 08:00 - 08:30 now that we have the scientists we don't need the priests do we was saying don't think of the scientists as replacing the priests don't think that you know the priests claim to be in touch with God the sign is plain to be in touch with reality there's no such thing as reality to be in touch with truth isn't corresponds to reality truth is simply what gets human beings what they want and in particular what gets democratic
• 08:30 - 09:00 communities what they want so if you think of enlightenment rationalism as having elevated science above religion you can think of pragmatism as saying don't elevate anything above anything just treat you know treat don't treat any area of culture as the place where you get the last word from because nobody's going to give you any last word you've been maligned from both the right and the left you're sort of this strange
• 09:00 - 09:30 position of being kind of not making anybody have the brightest said this is your these are your words the writers thinkers don't think that it is enough just to prefer democratic societies one also has to believe that they are objectively good now while hardly on the right I do see some merit and saying that some kinds of societies are better than others and that it's not just because I happen to be born into one that I happen to like my own so it seems like this claim that you're pointing out that the right is making it has some validity well in in
• 09:30 - 10:00 my capacity as a philosophy professor I I resist it because I don't think anybody has ever explained what objectively right means I mean we all know what better or worse right and wrong means but when you throw in objectively it seems to me it's just a way of patting yourself on the back or you know it's banging on the table nobody knows what it would be to have an objective inquiry into the relative
• 10:00 - 10:30 merits of democracy and fascism okay I'll give you that well what how do you on what basis do we decide some which is so what whether something is better or even worse we tell ourselves stories about the consequences I mean when we think hey maybe constitutional government is breaking down maybe we better find a strong and we tell ourselves stories about what happened to countries that had strong I think that most of most political persuasion has done by narratives of saying look
• 10:30 - 11:00 remember what happened when they did this or look look what could what might happen in the future if we did that when you go philosophical and try to step back from the narratives to the principles I think political discourse decays I would prefer to stick to the narrative okay well let's say a narratives about affirmative action there's a debate going on in the country right now about whether this is really good for us or we should get rid of it and into both sides make reasonable claims but how do we
• 11:00 - 11:30 adjudicate between these I mean how do we decide I think it's much like the abortion issue you know we decide that's that is trying to change the institution as the abortion advocates were trying to change the traditional customs in some cases laws is saying look the way things are going there is injustice and in
• 11:30 - 12:00 unhappiness the advocates of affirmative action have narratives about what it's like to grow up a descendant of the slaves in a country that has always made the blacks last hired first fired and so on and saying look to be Americans requires giving these people some kind of compensation that worked remarkably well for a generation I mean you might in in a way it's a miracle that it ever
• 12:00 - 12:30 worked I mean it's a miracle that the whites were able to say yeah you got a point there and in effect except that it's up the fact that whites would be at a disadvantage in certain situations for a while that seems to be breaking down you know I hope it won't break down but I haven't got any neat argument about you know when it's when affirmative action is okay when it isn't okay and so on I just sort of hope that the country will still feel enough generosity to
• 12:30 - 13:00 realize that's you know mm-hmm here we brought these people over slaves and it's still time to do something about it there's a radically different kind of culture war is what's going on right now in Afghanistan with the Taliban coming in and imposing this really severe Islamic law on a country in which some of the people might consider themselves heirs of the Enlightenment tradition who've gone to at universities and become well-educated women included who
• 13:00 - 13:30 are now being told they have to stay home if they leave the house have to be covered head to toe now here certainly we have a clash of cultures and it's only being one sides being maintained simply by force what do you mean do you see any kind of hope for a situation like that apart from force yeah I I have no no real grasp of Islamic fundamentalism and its it seems tremendously powerful the sudden I you know I wish I had a better sense of
• 13:30 - 14:00 where it came from but I honestly have no idea I mean it you're right it's a perfectly straightforward clash between everything the Enlightenment stands for and something sort of out of the dark ages and I don't see that philosophy or anything else much helps you find it you know fun could help these people find a common ground yeah in fact at one point you um and one essay say that those people who seem to be enemies of liberal
• 14:00 - 14:30 democracy all we can say about them is that they're mad really no I I think that what what I meant in that passage was just at a certain point you realize that conversation isn't paying off that you'll just never get anywhere by talking and the philosophical tradition the Plato contradiction suggests no actually if you do keep talking there's something deep in each of you that will respond and eventually you will come out
• 14:30 - 15:00 at the same place this seems to me just false I mean it would be nice that there was something deep in every human being that would lead them to the same moral conclusion but I think human beings are creatures of their cultures you can raise them fascists you can raise them fundamentalists you can raise them Liberal Democrats I hope we can raise more people to be liberal Democrats but I can't you know I can't offer something common to all human beings which provides the premise of an argument that they ought to be Liberal Democrats but so many people have been have trans their views because
• 15:00 - 15:30 of conversation sure and it may happen again uh you know maybe the children of the Taliban people will read books about the Enlightenment and some day there'll be something like an islamic enlightenment you know stranger stranger things of help we certainly have liberal Islamic countries like Turkey and and others that oh you know believe it's that there should be a public space separate from the religious private space right yeah yeah but you know again uh you know we
• 15:30 - 16:00 we thought Algeria was going to be like Turkey and it looks as if it isn't going to be like Turkey and you know none of us predicted either what's happening in Afghanistan or what's happening in Algeria yeah let's switch that talk about human nature a little bit I know that will you've written an essay it's very very compelling about that we should put you shouldn't bother ourselves with talk about what kind of the nature of human beings when we're
• 16:00 - 16:30 trying to talk about the nature of our political societies that we should talk about democracy without having to worry about what sorts of human beings we are but it seems like that I felt with students for example you know talk to students about what communism might be and the first thing that they'll jump up and say is no human beings aren't like that human beings are too selfish to go along with communism or you talk about Anarchy human beings are too greedy or power-hungry to go along with that it seems to that that that claims about
• 16:30 - 17:00 constitutional democracies do rest on certain claims well what kind of kind of human nature we have well the Enlightenment tried to rest them on claims without human nature but I don't think it's it succeeded in doing so and I think there's this point by Charlotte Perkins Gilman Perkins Gilman an early feminist call you can't change human nature that the substance of the poem is
• 17:00 - 17:30 when the first fish crawled out of this out of the sea the other fish said come on you can't change your nature now we've been changing aren't you no evolution has been changing the nature of organisms all this time culture has been changing the nature of human beings all this time now the whole idea of a permanent human nature seems to me you know a myth that's outlived all right so it's human nature varies with cultures right so it seems like that's all the more reason to look at that relationship
• 17:30 - 18:00 between what kind of society produces what kinds of people yeah um that's about all there is to look at namely human history instead of human nature Yeah right human history is a matter of narratives human nature is presumably an object of theory we keep hoping somebody will come up with a theory of them nature and it doesn't happen and I think we might as well been in the hole stick to the narrative well if human beings are products of their culture it seems
• 18:00 - 18:30 like they're the kind of judgments that they make are only going to be as good or bad is the kind of culture that they came from okay but there are you know there are people who are always slightly ahead of their culture Jefferson was a head of the American culture of his time Christ was a head of the culture of his time Socrates was a head of the culture these times occasionally one of these geniuses has ideas that people pick up and run with we don't know why that happens or how they became geniuses had I got ahead of their culture you know
• 18:30 - 19:00 maybe a cosmic ray hit their neurons I mean it doesn't really matter I became mrs. it isn't that we're going to get a recipe from making geniuses mm-hmm there was a piece that you did from the New York Times a year ago and I don't know quite how to describe it it was kind of a fictional history or something in the time just for that they asked for a bunch of papers from a bunch of articles from different people about how things will look a century from now the the 21st century so I dutifully wrote a
• 19:00 - 19:30 paper though yeah it was it was very nice there was a he kind of predicted what will happen down the road they did a history of this century past two centuries and then some predictions that with the class divisions the disparity growing between the people professional wages and those whose wages are sinking towards the minimum head will be eventually a class war II kind of predict I thought sort of fanciful but not entirely a revolution in 2014 followed by military rule and finally of Riefler assha ng a democracy but this
• 19:30 - 20:00 time instead of being based upon you know valuing rights it would be based upon a fraternity or fellow feeling well what I had in mind was the the rhetoric of the progressive movement in America around 1910 was against the idea that the essence of America is the individual against the state and the preservation of the rights of the individual against the state the progressive said for the 19th century individual rights were enough we got to have something different in the face of industrial
• 20:00 - 20:30 capitalism we got a form a new kind of democratic community in which it's the our responsibilities to each other rather than our individual rights that matter I think they were right and the left in America you know did help develop a kind of sense of community which didn't exist in 19th century America I think that came to an end in the sixties I hope it comes back we've got about one more minute what can we do now to forestall revolution in the streets and in another 20 years and how
• 20:30 - 21:00 do we distribute we distribute the will I let this let the suburban heights be taxed to pay for inner-city schools lower the wages of the professor's the executives and the lawyers so that you can raise the minimum wage stuff like that you know just plain ordinary redistributionist solutions well I haven't heard someone say that a long time it's not about lectures but it's a wonderful it's wonderful to hear well thank you so much prefer professor Rory for joining us today appreciate it
• 21:00 - 21:30 you