Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Trotsky and The Wild Orchids

    Uploaded by

    Matt Gaddis
    Rorty argues that he is attacked by critics on both the right and left. Critics on the right see his position as relativistic, while critics on the left see his commitment to liberal democracy as ignoring inequality. However, Rorty believes the criticism from the right is more dangerous as it promotes the idea that there is an objective reality and morality that can justify harmful politics if discovered, whereas disagreements among progressives on the left are smaller disputes.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Trotsky and The Wild Orchids

    Uploaded by

    Matt Gaddis
    1K views2 pages
    Rorty argues that he is attacked by critics on both the right and left. Critics on the right see his position as relativistic, while critics on the left see his commitment to liberal democracy as ignoring inequality. However, Rorty believes the criticism from the right is more dangerous as it promotes the idea that there is an objective reality and morality that can justify harmful politics if discovered, whereas disagreements among progressives on the left are smaller disputes.

    Original Title

    Trotsky and the Wild Orchids

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rorty argues that he is attacked by critics on both the right and left. Critics on the right see his position as relativistic, while critics on the left see his commitment to liberal democracy as ignoring inequality. However, Rorty believes the criticism from the right is more dangerous as it promotes the idea that there is an objective reality and morality that can justify harmful politics if discovered, whereas disagreements among progressives on the left are smaller disputes.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Trotsky and The Wild Orchids

    Uploaded by

    Matt Gaddis
    Rorty argues that he is attacked by critics on both the right and left. Critics on the right see his position as relativistic, while critics on the left see his commitment to liberal democracy as ignoring inequality. However, Rorty believes the criticism from the right is more dangerous as it promotes the idea that there is an objective reality and morality that can justify harmful politics if discovered, whereas disagreements among progressives on the left are smaller disputes.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Rorty, Richard. "Trotsky and the Wild Orchids." Philosophy and Social hope. Penguin Books, 1999. 3-20.

    Print.

    Trotsky and the Wild Orchids Thesis


    Rorty argues that critics on the right attack him because of his philosophy, while critics on the left attack him because of his politics. While, he sees the latter as a small dispute amongst progressives, the former is based on a dangerous misunderstanding about the role philosophy can play in a society. 1. Rorty is often attacked by critics on the right who believe that his position is relativistic. He is also attacked by critics on the left who believe that his commitment to liberal democracy ignores the gross inequalities that remain present in contemporary society. (4) In order to highlight the fact that these positions were not taken frivolously, Rorty proceeds by elaborating on the route that he took to get to these positions. (4-14) Rorty now agrees with Deweys claim that there was nothing bigger, more permanent and more reliable, behind our sense of moral obligation to those in pain than a certain contingent historical phenomenon. (14) While, this is often referred to as cultural relativism, this is inaccurate. Acknowledging that our current sense of morality is contingent need not reduce to the claim that any articulation of morality is as valuable as any other. One may not be able to philosophically convert everyone to this view, but this does not lend credence to the claim that each view is equally valid. (Nazi example, 15) Some critics on the right maintain that there is some objective notion of reality and morality, and that we simply must work harder to achieve it. However, for Deweyan pragmatists like me, history and anthropology are enough to show that there are no unwobbling pivots, and that seeking objectivity is just a matter of getting as much intersubjective agreement as you can manage. (15) On the left there has been a split between: those who believe that American liberal democracy is fundamentally flawed and that has always been run by a corrupt ruling class, and those who believe that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with liberal democracy, and are proud of its past and guardedly hopeful about its future. (17) Rorty finds himself in the latter class and believes that those in this group tend to have rejected socialism, while those in the former group still believe in some form of socialism. (18) Rorty does not believe that the latter split between different progressive individuals is very important; however, he does believe that the distinction between progressives and the orthodox groups is important because the philosophical beliefs of the orthodox group lead to dangerous politics. (18) The danger that comes from looking for a further objective description of reality and morality is that you might succeed, and your success might let you imagine that you have something more to rely on than the tolerance and decency of your fellow human beings. (20)

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    6.

    7.

    8.

    9.

    10. While most progressives have given up the idea that there is one true description of reality and morality, Rorty believes that they still hold onto the misguided belief that philosophical ideas should affect political ideas. (19)

    You might also like