The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Richard Rorty and the End of Metaphysics
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:32 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets im done here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848704) |
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:33 PM Author: Maize puppy absolutely devastating (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848716) |
 |
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:33 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets Richard Rorty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848719) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:41 PM Author: Rebellious flesh philosopher-king address Rorty, Richard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848773) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:45 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets he is dead. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848812) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:46 PM Author: Rebellious flesh philosopher-king address i stopped reading philosophy after i got to James and Rorty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848823) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:47 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets sounds like they did their job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848828) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:48 PM Author: Rebellious flesh philosopher-king address i think i was already thinking what the pragmatists were thinking and was just waiting for someone with more intellectual horsepower to write it down. life is flame, do what works, pretend that x is important and it will be, pretend to be y and you will be (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848840) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:52 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets exactly my experience. ive been reading royce lately though so im not totally off it but its not the same (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848873) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:55 PM Author: Rebellious flesh philosopher-king address never read him (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849236) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:57 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets very cr if you're a philocuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849254) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:50 PM Author: Razzle rigpig resolved: pragmatism is the only pragmatic way to approach life and the human condition (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848854) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:53 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets are you a non-correspondencemo? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848882) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:59 PM Author: Razzle rigpig yeah i think all pragmatic people are, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849266) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:02 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets i dunno about putnam. he thinks that usefulness is a mark of correspondence ("no miracles" in the phil of science). my impression is that even if you want to hold some kind of internal realism you still have a correspondence feature, even if its conceptually relative/non-universal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849285) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:21 PM Author: Razzle rigpig i agree with that (your 2nd sentence), i'm just not sure if that qualifies as a coherent correspondence since it's relative. i mean to think about anything you need some kind of correspondence framework. of course as a pragmatist i don't think this universal coherence really matters anyway (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849389) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:40 PM Author: lime vigorous nibblets I think what you're saying is that the purpose of any conceptual scheme or formalism is utility, not correspondence.
I think that commits you to the position that the same expression in two dissimilar conceptual formalisms can be equivalent as long as their functional properties are equivalent.
My response is that the ability and extent to which a given formalism creates utility is actually dependent on the structure of the expression itself, specifically, the extent to which the structure of the formalism corresponds to the structure of its referent.
Although that's basically all to restate putnam; the formalisms that work the best are the ones the correspond the best. |