Vents Sīlis: Nāve, ironija un filosofija

2007. gada 19. jūnijā, plkst. 23:36

komentāri (22)

• Mrs. Vanda 20.06.07 11:24

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpf-ye31sYk

• Mrs. Vanda 20.06.07 11:30

  "Gan reliģija, gan zinātne ir tikai literatūras žanri, proti, blakus dzejai un mākslai, tās ir tikai vēl viens veids kā lūkoties uz pasauli." Izlasot šo, atcerējos kādu Dokinsa izteikumu, ka pat viskaismīgākie postmodernisti, kas zinātni uzskata tikai par vēl vienu literatūras žanru uz konferencēm dodas ar Boeing, nevis, piemēram, ar lidojošo paklāju. Rortiju dažkārt ir interesanti lasīt, bet ja aplūko viņa paustās tēzes, tad tur nekā apbrīnas vērta nesameklēt.

• jacques 20.06.07 12:35

  zontāga un rortijs ir miruši, tagad visi vēršamies pie vēl dzīvajiem frančiem', kuri atšķirībā no Rortija un Danto nevis velta visas pūles mēģinājumiem definēt post- filosofijas, -vēstures, -dialektikas u.c. laiku (neviļus iemantojot diezgan pesimistisku skatu), bet gan domā, kā dzīvot uz priekšu vienlīdzīgākā un demokrātiskākā pasaulē.

• Mrs. Vanda > jacques 20.06.07 12:46

  No Daniela Deneta atmiņām: (I remember fondly one time we sat together at a UNESCO conference listening to some very flowery French philosophers holding forth in typical Gallic fashion, and he leaned over and whispered to me, "They think they're thinking!" But he was equally unimpressed with the high-tech arms races of argument and counterexample flourishing in many quarters of analytic philosophy.) === Kuri tad it tie franči? Un vēl jau arī ir azbesta Marta Nussbauma, kas noteikti varētu sadod pa zobiem ne vienam vien franču postmodernistam - gan tiešā, gan pārnestā nozīmē.

• Dag 20.06.07 12:54

  nav līksmības. tātad nepareizi.

• Gumija 20.06.07 12:57

  Mrs. Vanda, relax. Neviens nesaka, ka itin visas Ričija tēzes vajag ņemt par pilnu, tāpat kā neviens neaicina viņu pielūgt. Rortija loma filosofijā ir tāda pati kā cukuram kafijā - viņa asprātīgie komentāri saldina hārdkora klasiku un analītiskos biezumus. Var jau, protams, dzert to kafiju arī pliku, taču patīkamāk ir ar cukuru :)))

• Mrs. Vanda>Gumija 20.06.07 14:04

  neesmu teicis, ka visas Rortija tēzes jāņem par pilnu. Neredzu arī - vismaz cik var spriest pēc rakstītā - ka mūsu viedokļi īpaši atšķirtos. Varbūt vienīgi neesmu īpaši sajūsmā par analoģiju, jo tā vedina domāt, par to, ka ir kaut kādas ideālā kombinācija, kurā Rortijs jau it kā būtu ierakstīts.

• Gumija 20.06.07 14:14

  Noformulēšu precīzāk: analoģijas mērķis bija parādīt, ka iespēja lietot kafiju + cukuru (filosofiju + Rortiju) kombinācijā dažiem, taču nekādā gadījumā ne visiem, var šķist tīkamāka, nekā iespēju lietot katru no tiem atsevišķi. Ja mēs šai ziņā esam vienisprātis, tad mūsu viedokļi tiešām neatšķiras. Cita starpā - "They think they're thinking!" ir ekselents filosofiskā humora paraugs.

• Mrs. Vanda>Gumija 20.06.07 14:24

  Izklausīsie piekasīgi, bet es tomēr gribētu palikt pie tā, ka es nelietoju nedz Rortiju, nedz Dekartu utt. Es, iespējams ar viņiem sarunājos lasot un domājot. Un ja tā padomā, tad dažas no Rortija izteiktajām domām ir vai nu triviālas, vai aplamas (t.i., stulbas). Šajā ziņa es piekrītu tam, ko šeit ir pateicis Blekbērns (http://www.slate.com/id/2168488/): The world of philosophy is poorer for Richard Rorty's passing. Courageous, provocative, exhilarating, imaginative, and often deeply annoying, he was a landmark even for those of us who found ourselves trying to set different courses. His range was prodigious, and, unlike most analytically trained philosophers, he loved the broad sweep and the unscholarly generalization. His Plato-Descartes-Kant could stand monolithically against a Dewey-Wittgenstein-Davidson opponent, with no fracture showing in either composite, and if Frege could be folded into the first and Heidegger into the second, so much the better. Indeed, it sometimes seemed as if the whole of philosophy revolved around a Manichean struggle between dark and dreary philosophers who held that somehow, somewhere, we human beings manage to represent the way of the world to ourselves, and those light blithe spirits who joyously kicked out any trace of such an idea. In this radicalism, Rorty was in many respects a true follower of his mentor Carnap and his attack on metaphysics. But for Carnap, it was only external or philosophical questions, about the standing of a whole language, that had to be seen with a skeptical eye, so that the business of charting sober, scientific truth could proceed undisturbed within. For Rorty, the distinction disappeared. So, having decided, say, that it makes no sense to ask the "metaphysical" question of whether mathematical language represents mathematical fact or not, then we should hold that the question of whether the statement that there is a prime number between 12 and 20 represents a mathematical truth goes the same way. There is no safe haven for truth and representation within the shelter of language, any more than there is outside it. We do not mirror nature. The world is well lost. Truth is what your contemporaries let you get away with. It would be a long business to assess what Rorty added to the long "pragmatist" tradition of denying that we can get outside our own skins and compare our best ways of looking at things with a truth apprehended without them, to see how they compare. After all, Bradley, Joachim, Blanshard, and the Vienna Circle stand alongside James, Dewey, Schiller, and dozens of Rorty's contemporaries in trumpeting that denial. It would also be a long business to assess Rorty's other devices, such as the association of "realism" with a talking world, a reality that "requires" one and only one form of description. What is perhaps clearer is that if we take these ideas onboard and couple them with a happy tendency to stroll across Carnap's divide, we court dangers. For in an everyday context there is such a thing as comparing beliefs with the world, and the world does require descriptions of us: I can confront my pre-existent belief that there are eggs in the fridge with the horrid reality of there being none, and the question being raised, then the fridge does require the description of being egg-free. Some of Rorty's explosive and radical sayings seem to trade on the ease with which he strolled across Carnap's divide. How many of them depended upon it I would not like to say. An earlier generation of pragmatists eventually discovered that reality has its uses, but I think Rorty never followed them. Rorty did not draw the naive conclusion that everything is relative, or that everything is illusion or mirage or social construction. Those ideas buy into the same worship of truth as realists do, but lament our inability to get at it. The right response is to abandon the whole dialectic: to skip free, inventively, creatively (fold Nietzsche into the mix as well), and always aware of the provisional nature of any saying, always with an ironic detachment to the businesses of living. It is an attractive vision, up to a point, but almost designed to irritate serious investigators, or those whose welfare depends upon their activities. You do not want the folderol, hey-nonny-nonny tendency in charge of the crime squad when you are under unjust suspicion of being the murderer.

• Mrs. Vanda 20.06.07 14:31

  Kaut gan labāk (un jautrāk) ir lasīt šo te: http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/reviews/Rorty.htm

• Gumija 20.06.07 14:41

  [Rorty's philosophy] is an attractive vision, up to a point, but almost designed to irritate serious investigators, or those whose welfare depends upon their activities. Par to jau arī ir tas stāsts.

• no-one 20.06.07 14:41

  Patiesībā labāk un jautrāk ir nelasīt. :)

• Mrs. Vanda 20.06.07 14:58

  Piemirsi, ka vēl jautrāk ir arī nerakstīt (patiesībā).

• Mrs. Vanda>Gumija 20.06.07 15:07

  Piekrītu.

• bet! 20.06.07 15:08

  Man viņš tik un tā patīk! Kopā jautrāk!

• Dag 20.06.07 15:46

  jau labāk.

• Kleksis 22.06.07 6:14

  Maks Borns teica: es lasiju dadzu filozofu darbus, taču tie man neko neizskaidroja. Vai šis arī nebūtu tas pats gadījums?

• Kleksis 22.06.07 6:18

  Filozofu teiktais ir tie paši pērtiķu brēcieni, tikai modernizēti.

• Mrs. Vanda>Kleksis 22.06.07 8:40

  Kurš "tas pats gadījums?" Kad Bornam atkal nekas nav skaidrs?

• Kleksis - Mrs. Vanda 23.06.07 6:19

  Shis ir tas pats gadiijums, kad filozofs neko neiz- skaidro. Ja es kljuudos, tad taa arii mani apgaismo.

• 1-20
• 21-40

Piedalies diskusijā: