Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

Description

Since the seventeenth century, discussion of the mind, of knowledge, and of philosophy has been dominated by the notion of representa tion. The mind is compared to a mirror that reflects reality; knowl edge is concerned with the accuracy of these reflections; and the strategy employed to obtain this knowledge-that of inspecting. repairing, and polishing the mirror-belongs to plhilosophy. In a probing and wide-ranging critique of this imagery, Richard Rorty surveys its efects on philosophy, particularly on modern analytic thought, and advocates its "deconstruction.' The author contrasts the "edifying" philosophy of Dewey, Witt genstein, and Heidegger with the "'systematic'" philosophy of Locke, Descartes, Kant, Russell, and Husserl. He argues that the discovery of correspondences between thought or language and the world must be abandoned, and with it the idea of philosophy as centered in a theory of representation. Professor Rorty concludes that once epistemology (and such puta tive successors as philosophy of language or psycho-linguistics) are put aside, philosophy will no longer be thought of as providing a tribunal of pure reason which judges other areas of culture. The aim of "philosophy without mirrors," he suggests, will be to con tinue the conversation which constitutes our culture, rather than to pronounce on its results from an ahistorical point of view. "It is, then, something of an event when a book appears in which the central task which laymen demand of the philosopher-that of providing a clear and forceful statement of what conclusions of general importance emerge from the tangled encounters of profes sional argument--is discharged without sacrificing the requirements of detailed and rigorous argument. .. It is going to be a long time before a better book of its kind appears. The elegance of its style, the easy and effective deployment of historical scholar ship, and, above all, the ability to distinguish the central threads of recent debate from the side-issues and to follow through their implications in an original and exciting way, combine to charm the reader as well as to engage his or her argumentative powers." -Alasdair Maclntyre, The London Review of Books Since the seventeenth century, discussion of the mind, of knowledge, and of philosophy has been dominated by the notion of representa tion. The mind is compared to a mirror that reflects reality; knowl edge is concerned with the accuracy of these reflections; and the strategy employed to obtain this knowledge-that of inspecting. repairing, and polishing the mirror-belongs to plhilosophy. In a probing and wide-ranging critique of this imagery, Richard Rorty surveys its efects on philosophy, particularly on modern analytic thought, and advocates its "deconstruction.' The author contrasts the "edifying" philosophy of Dewey, Witt genstein, and Heidegger with the "'systematic'" philosophy of Locke, Descartes, Kant, Russell, and Husserl. He argues that the discovery of correspondences between thought or language and the world must be abandoned, and with it the idea of philosophy as centered in a theory of representation. Professor Rorty concludes that once epistemology (and such puta tive successors as philosophy of language or psycho-linguistics) are put aside, philosophy will no longer be thought of as providing a tribunal of pure reason which judges other areas of culture. The aim of "philosophy without mirrors," he suggests, will be to con tinue the conversation which constitutes our culture, rather than to pronounce on its results from an ahistorical point of view. "It is, then, something of an event when a book appears in which the central task which laymen demand of the philosopher-that of providing a clear and forceful statement of what conclusions of general importance emerge from the tangled encounters of profes sional argument--is discharged without sacrificing the requirements of detailed and rigorous argument. .. It is going to be a long time before a better book of its kind appears. The elegance of its style, the easy and effective deployment of historical scholar ship, and, above all, the ability to distinguish the central threads of recent debate from the side-issues and to follow through their implications in an original and exciting way, combine to charm the reader as well as to engage his or her argumentative powers." -Alasdair Maclntyre, The London Review of Books