Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-16 08:00:47 EDT

PhotosVideosAllPeople
LatestRanked
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 16, 2026, 2:03 PM

Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access.
Phil as Poetry p.4
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Ontology

My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 15, 2026, 2:03 PM

The fear that the imagination goes all the way down causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality, “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Imagination

My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 14, 2026, 2:03 PM

At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Imagination

My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 13, 2026, 2:01 PM

My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Imagination

My hypothesis about why ontology remains so popular is that we are still reluctant to admit that the poetic imagination sets the bounds for human thought. At the heart of philosophy’s quarrel with poetry is the fear that the imagination goes all the way down—that there is nothing we talk about that we might not have talked of differently. This fear causes philosophers to become obsessed by the need to achieve direct access to reality. Direct, in this sense, means “unmediated by language”—for our language, we are uneasily aware, might well have been different. Before we can rid ourselves of ontology we are going to have to get rid of the idea of nonlinguistic access. This will entail getting rid of faculty psychology. We shall have to give up the picture of the human mind as divided into a good part that puts us in touch with the really real and a bad part that engages in self-stimulation and autosuggestion.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 12, 2026, 2:04 PM

Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#RealityVsAppearance

When it comes to Reality, however, there is no such thing as common sense. Unlike the case of trees, there are no platitudes accepted by both the vulgar and the learned. In some circles, you can get general agreement that the ultimate nature of Reality is atoms and void. In others, you can get a consensus that it is God—an immaterial, non-spatio-temporal, being. The reason quarrels among metaphysicians about the nature of Reality seem so ludicrous is that each of them feels free to pick a few of his favorite things and claim ontological privilege for them. Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 11, 2026, 2:01 PM

Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Ontology

When it comes to Reality, however, there is no such thing as common sense. Unlike the case of trees, there are no platitudes accepted by both the vulgar and the learned. In some circles, you can get general agreement that the ultimate nature of Reality is atoms and void. In others, you can get a consensus that it is God—an immaterial, non-spatio-temporal, being. The reason quarrels among metaphysicians about the nature of Reality seem so ludicrous is that each of them feels free to pick a few of his favorite things and claim ontological privilege for them. Despite the best efforts of positivists, pragmatists, and deconstructionists, ontology is as popular among contemporary philosophers as it was in the days of Democritus and Anaxagoras. Most analytic philosophers still take the question of whether the human mind can get in touch with the really real with perfect seriousness.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 10, 2026, 2:01 PM

One can only dissent from common sense on a particular point if one is willing to accept most of the rest of what common sense says.
Phil as Poetry p.3
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#CommonSense

The difference between ordinary things and Reality is that when learning how to use the word "tree" we automatically acquire lots of true beliefs about trees. As Donald Davidson has argued, most of our beliefs about such things as trees and stars and wristwatches have to be true. If somebody thinks that trees are typically blue in color, and that they never grow higher than two feet, we shall conclude that whatever she may be talking about, it is not trees. There have to be many commonly accepted truths before we can raise the possibility of error. Any of these truths can be put in doubt, but not all of them at once. One can only dissent from common sense on a particular point if one is willing to accept most of the rest of what common sense says.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 9, 2026, 2:01 PM

Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. We should do our best to get rid of it.
Phil as Poetry p.1
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#RealityVsAppearance

Common sense distinguishes between the apparent color of a thing and its real color, between the apparent motions of heavenly bodies and their real motions, between nondairy creamer and real cream, and between imitation Rolexes and real ones. But only those with a taste for philosophy ask whether real Rolexes are REALLY real. Only philosophers take seriously Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A. That distinction has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. We should do our best to get rid of it.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 8, 2026, 2:02 PM

Only those with a taste for philosophy ask whether real Rolexes are REALLY real. Only philosophers take seriously Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A.
Phil as Poetry p.1
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#RealityVsAppearance

Common sense distinguishes between the apparent color of a thing and its real color, between the apparent motions of heavenly bodies and their real motions, between nondairy creamer and real cream, and between imitation Rolexes and real ones. But only those with a taste for philosophy ask whether real Rolexes are REALLY real. Only philosophers take seriously Plato's distinction between Reality with a capital R and Appearance with a capital A. That distinction has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had. We should do our best to get rid of it.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 7, 2026, 2:02 PM

Any greater plausibility / intelligibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed.
PasAA p.221
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Intelligibility

21. Another way of putting this point is to say that intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either. By way of contrast, consider McDowell’s claim that “the sheer intelligibility of the idea [of openness to facts] is enough” for his purposes (of finding a middle way between bald naturalism and the renunciation of empiricism) (McDowell, Mind and World, 113). He thinks that the idea of our being open to facts has an advantage in “intelligibility” over that of “the fact itself impressing itself on a perceiver.” But any greater plausibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 6, 2026, 2:02 PM

Intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either.
PasAA p.221
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Intelligibility

21. Another way of putting this point is to say that intelligibility is cheap: you can get it just by training people to talk in a certain way. That a view is intuitive, or a phrase intelligible, shows very little about the utility of either. By way of contrast, consider McDowell’s claim that “the sheer intelligibility of the idea [of openness to facts] is enough” for his purposes (of finding a middle way between bald naturalism and the renunciation of empiricism) (McDowell, Mind and World, 113). He thinks that the idea of our being open to facts has an advantage in “intelligibility” over that of “the fact itself impressing itself on a perceiver.” But any greater plausibility of metaphors of transparency over metaphors of impression is entirely a function of the rhetoric to which one has previously been exposed.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 5, 2026, 2:02 PM

Philosophers’ problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
PasAA p.184
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Intelligibility

Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 4, 2026, 2:01 PM

Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers.
PasAA p.184
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Intelligibility

Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 3, 2026, 2:01 PM

Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns.
PasAA p.184
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Intelligibility

Quine thinks that particle physics gives us the one true paradigm of intelligibility. McDowell thinks that we have two such paradigms. I think we would do better to rid ourselves of the notion of “intelligibility” altogether.21 We should substitute the notion of techniques of problem-solving. Democritus, Newton, and Dalton solved some problems with particles and laws. Darwin, Gibbon, and Hegel solved others with narratives. Carpenters solve others with hammers and nails, and soldiers still others with guns. Philosophers’ problems are about how to prevent the words used by some of these problem-solvers from getting in the way of other words used by other problem-solvers. These problems are not posed by dichotomies between realms of being, but by cultural imperialists, people with monotheistic delusions of grandeur, such as Quine and Fichte.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialOct 1, 2026, 6:18 PM

Paradox is sometimes a small price to pay for progress, as the examples of Copernicus, Kant, and Freud may suggest.
PasAA p.175
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Paradox

Paradox, however, is sometimes a small price to pay for progress, as the examples of Copernicus, Kant, and Freud may suggest. Further, it is a price Brandom himself is willing to pay, at least in the eyes of Searle, Nagel, and others, when he follows Sellars in casting sentience to the winds and denying that dogs and babies have beliefs “except in a derivative sense.” I am not sure that the paradox of which Heidegger and I are guilty is all that much more paradoxical than the one which many people think Sellars and Brandom are guilty of when they assert that all awareness is a linguistic affair.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 30, 2026, 2:03 PM

I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
Rorty & His Critics p.150
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Interpretation

Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 29, 2026, 2:02 PM

I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself.
Rorty & His Critics p.150
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Interpretation

Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 28, 2026, 2:02 PM

Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them."
Rorty & His Critics p.150
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Interpretation

Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 27, 2026, 2:02 PM

Philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization.
Rorty & His Critics p.150
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Interpretation

Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 26, 2026, 2:01 PM

Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books.
Rorty & His Critics p.150
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Interpretation

Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read. Certainly authors are not the best authorities on how to use their own books. More generally, philosophy professors may not be the best authorities on which philosophy books can do most for the progress of human civilization. Once we write our books, we should, I think, sit back and say, "Habent sua fata lzbelli; anybody who cares enough to read them can do what they want to with my books, and good luck to them." I admit that it is often exasperating to read other people's summaries of what one has said; I have frequently experienced this exasperation myself. But I do not think there is much point in insisting that the only legitimate Rezeptionsgeschichte is one in which authorial intention is respected.
Load more