Grilled Cheese

ExploreLog inSign up
Terms of UsePrivacy PolicyCommunity StandardsHelpGet the app

Grilled Cheese is a product of Village Compute

Version devBuilt at: 2026-10-11 02:37:10 EDT

Explore

PostsPeople
LatestRanked
@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.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 25, 2026, 2:01 PM

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.
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 24, 2026, 2:03 PM

Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
Rorty & His Critics p.148
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Philosophy

What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 23, 2026, 2:03 PM

Philosophy, poetry, and science are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points–so many that no single person can keep track of them all.
Rorty & His Critics p.148
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Philosophy

What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 22, 2026, 2:03 PM

Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is.
Rorty & His Critics p.148
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Philosophy

What they should say - what would improve and expand their community if they did say - is, "There is a lot about philosophy that I don't know." This is also what should be said by Continental philosophers who are repelled by the technicality - the lack of romance, drama, and verve - when they pick up a book by Searle, Rawls, Davidson, Dennett, or Putnam. But neither sort of philosopher is willing to say this, because both insist that they know what philosophy is. They are both wrong. Nobody knows what philosophy is, any more than anybody knows what poetry is or what science is. All three of these are cultural traditions with many contemporary growing points - so many that no single person can keep track of them all. Nobody is in any position to generalize about "all possible" philosophy or poetry or science, because brilliant innovators will always think up new things for any of these three to be.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 20, 2026, 2:01 PM

We can only resolve some issues by trying to create a culture in which the science-poetry distinction is not explicated in terms of the distinction between reality & fantasy, but in terms of the distinction between different sorts of human needs.
Rorty & His Critics p.151
#Rorty
#Experimentalism

I would suggest that these issues can only be resolved, as Dewey would say, experimentally. That is, we can only resolve them by trying to create a culture in which the science-poetry distinction is not explicated in terms of the distinction between reality and fantasy, between "the world" and "us," but rather–as I suggested above–in terms of the distinction between different sorts of human needs. This would be a great big cultural change–as big as the one that was brought about by the secularization of morality and of social institutions–but is worth a try. Perhaps my conviction that this experiment would succeed is due to being an American who has read too much Emerson, Whitman, James, and Dewey–just as Bouveresse admits that his conviction that such an experiment is bound to fail may be the result of certain particular aspects of the French situation and of his personal history. But, however this may be, there is no substitute for trying the experiment and observing the result.
@rortyquotes.bsky.socialSep 19, 2026, 2:02 PM

One of the few things Thomas Nagel and I agree about is that argument is over-rated in philosophy and that the central issues on which he and I disagree–whether experience goes beyond language–are pretty well unarguable.
Rorty & His Critics p.151
#Pragmatism
#Rorty
#Experimentalism

How are Bouveresse and I to resolve these issues? By applying the powerful methods of analytic philosophy? What methods? Our disagreements about these matters can as easily be phrased in the jargon of analytic philosophy of science and philosophy of language as in any other. Restatement in a given jargon does not insure the availability of a method for resolving disagreement. (One of the few things Thomas Nagel and I agree about, for example, is that argument is over-rated in philosophy and, in particular, that the central issues on which he and I disagree - whether experience goes beyond language, and whether reality may not extend beyond the reach of any possible human language - are pretty well unarguable.)
Load more