What I Love About Rorty

William James and Nietzsche did for the word “true” what John Stuart Mill had done for the word “right.” Just as Mill says that there is no ethical motive apart from the desire for the happiness of human beings, so James and Nietzsche say that there is no will to truth distinct from the will to happiness. All three philosophers think that the terms “true” and “right” gain their meaning from their use in evaluating the relative success of efforts to achieve happiness.

– Richard Rorty, Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers IV (2007), p.28

Richard Rorty is one of my favourite philosophers. While I completely disagree with many things he says (especially about religion!) I consistently look forward to reading his writings. I think the main reason for this is because Rorty has two abilities which many philosophers whom I have had to read lack. Put simply, these are the abilities to read and write. At his best, Rorty is a brilliantly concise and punchy writer who is able to sum up complicated theories in fresh ways and to distill the heart of the matter in a few words, which often then forces you into re-thinking the entire question.

More than a talented writer, I think Rorty is a talented reader. Despite blatantly caricaturing and ignoring some pretty important figures (e.g. Plato, C. S. Peirce, Edmund Husserl, Christian writers) Rorty always writes with one eye on the history of philosophy; deliberately trying to remind his readers of the significance of those who have written before him and to suggest ways in which they can be understood today. I think I find this so refreshing because many Analytic philosophers ignore the history of philosophy and write as though philosophy began with Quine (ca. 1950s) or, if they are especially adventurous, Frege (ca. 1880s).

The above quote is an example of this kind of writing. In a few sentences Rorty brings together the ethical thought of British philosopher John Stuart Mill with the metaphysical and epistemological thought of German Post-Kantian Friedrich Nietzsche and American Pragmatist William James. He does so effortlessly and the comparison that he draws is quite illuminating.

Further, it implicitly suggests a way of understanding all of Nineteenth-Century philosophy, since he has chosen (arguably) the three most significant philosophers from (arguably) the three most important countries which produce and listen to philosophers. This is not only a handy way of getting handle on what were important philosophical developments of that time, but also dares the reader to try to think through how far philosophy has come since then, and to think through the notorious split between analytic and continental philosophy: ‘If Nietzsche and Mill were sort of talking about the same thing, then perhaps Derrida and Davidson are sort of talking about the same thing?’, ‘If James and Nietzsche came up with a strong perspectival conception of truth some 100 years ago, what have we come up with lately?’

As as synthesizer, an agitator, and a tour-guide of the history of philosophy, Richard Rorty is superb!

If you’re looking for some summer reading, check out Rorty’s popular Philosophy and Social Hope. Though I disagree with much in it, I think it is a great example of what philosophy can be.