Richard Rorty

Philosophy Now

by Alan R. Malachowski

Richard Rorty is one of the world's most influential living thinkers. He is notorious for contending that the traditional, foundation-building and truth-seeking ambitions of systematic philosophy should be set aside in favor of a more pragmatic, conversational, hermeneutically guided project. This challenge has not only struck at the heart of philosophy but has ricocheted across other disciplines, both contesting their received self-images and opening up new avenues of inquiry in the process.


Alan Malachowski provides an authoritative overview of Rorty's considerable body of work and a general assessment of his impact both within philosophy and in the humanities more broadly. He begins by explaining the genesis of Rorty's central ideas, tracking their development from suggestions in his early papers through their crystallization in his groundbreaking book, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature . Malachowski evaluates in detail some of the common criticisms of Rorty's position and his ensuing pragmatism. The book goes on to examine the subsequent evolution of his ideas, focusing particularly on the main themes of his second major work, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity . The political and cultural impact of Rorty's writings on such diverse fields as feminism, cultural and literary theory, and international relations are also considered, and the author explores why Rorty's work has generally found its warmest reception in these areas rather than among mainstream philosophers.


As the best available introduction to Rorty's thought, this is the ideal entry point for anyone seeking to learn what he has said and why it has been and continues to be so influential.

Genres: Philosophy

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[Heleen.A.H · Rating 2 out of 5]

“Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented ‘knowing’. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of ‘world history’, but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. “

Rorty ( the bad boy of American philosophy )will help you understand this, I have tried to read his ideas from multiple sources, and I can confidently say that this book is not a great option. Rorty deserves to be introduced way better than this!

[Ethan Rogers · Rating 2 out of 5]

I went into this reading with the impression that Rorty has a tendency to raise problems about concepts that he dislikes and then to dismiss those concepts, without taking the time to work through the objections to see how much weight they should really have. Malachowski basically agrees with this assessment, but maintains that Rorty can't be criticized for not working through the objections thoroughly, since Rorty never intends to do that kind of philosophy.

As Malachowski himself acknowledges, the lack of a decisive critique of traditional analytic philosophy means that the value of Rorty's work hinges on whether Rorty can open up a different and more valuable field of discourse. Fine. At least on Malachowski's account, the field that Rorty apparently opens up seems to amount to a "liberalism" that involves "not being cruel" and maximizing people's freedom to do what they want without the interference of authority. Frankly, I think these ideas were already available without Rorty's philosophizing, and it's not clear that from Malachowski's presentation that Rorty is able to give a particularly valuable or novel spin to them. This left me at the end of the book wondering "what was the point of that?"

Malachowski does offer one indirect argument for Rorty's significance which recurs in several places throughout the book: if Rorty's contribution is as insignificant as his critics claim, why then do they seem to be so annoyed with Rorty? Surely their annoyance is evidence that Rorty deeply threatens something they are committed to, whether or not they are prepared to admit this openly. I think I can discern a more parsimonious explanation: Malachowski repeatedly suggests that if the representationilist theory of truth is, as Rorty insists, useless, then the critic's mistake is less an error of fact than an example of poor taste and lack of literary sophistication. Now, it is possible to accuse someone of a mistake about matters of fact while respecting their judgment. But to accuse someone of having bad taste and of being unsophisticated is a direct attack on their intelligence. We probably should not be shocked if these kinds of attacks tend to stir up acrimony regardless of the substance of the issues under discussion. Suffice it to say that I am not highly optimistic about Rorty's ability to foster the kind of liberal and civil conversation that he apparently values.

[VII · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me that I am overly familiar with Rorty's books it was a useful book, mostly because it confirmed and somewhat expanded my image of him, helped me track some hopefully useful quotations and introduced me to some interplay with other philosophers. But as the only other reviewer here (Rob) noted, it's hard to see this book as an introduction to Rorty and it's also hard to see it as adding something new to Rorty's thinking.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm not sure exactly what the point of this book was supposed to be. I'm fairly familiar with Rorty's work myself, and it seems to me that this book was just an extended butt-kissing session. It tried so hard to be an introduction, explanation, and defense of Rorty at the same time that it missed the mark on all three. It's certainly more of a discussion of work *about* Rorty than about any of Rorty's work itself, yet the author takes great pains to try to convince you otherwise.

If you've already read some of Rorty's works and want to hear "the same" thing sung in a slightly different key, you might find this interesting. Otherwise your time would be much better spent reading Rorty's books themselves and forming your own opinion. This was too much like a salesman trying to pitch another salesman.