Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To bookmark an article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

Want to save an article in your browser’s Bookmarks for quick access? Press Ctrl + D and a dialogue box will open asking how you want to save it.

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

O'Carroll, L. (2001). In Praise of Uncertainty: (Persuading, Inventing, and Believing). Free Associations, 9(1):58-81.

(2001). Free Associations, 9(1):58-81

In Praise of Uncertainty: (Persuading, Inventing, and Believing)

Larry O'Carroll

Consider These Prestigious Notions: truth as correspondence with reality; the conditions of the possibility of knowing anything at all; the nature of human subjectivity; the character of justice and the good society; the progress of our knowledge of the World Out There. The neo-pragmatist philosopher, Richard Rorty, suspects all these habits of mind of ‘foundationalism’ (Rorty, 1980, 1998). They can only be possible objects of sense, he holds, for an ‘edifying’, ‘representationalist’ philosophy conceiving of itself as conducting inquiries into the grounds of all thinking; into the general, ahistorical, and transdiscursive foundations of all truth; into the nature of the world's furniture, always and everywhere. The view Rorty contests is that once philosophy has inquired with such objects in mind, it is in the position to advise all knowledges — the lesser, parochial knowledges, so to say — as to how to keep themselves epistemically honest. Disputing its self-representation as the court of appeal before which all contenders for the ‘true’ must present themselves, Rorty (1989) proposes a more ironic, bracingly ethnocentric, picture of the philosophical enterprise. Philosophy may join the cultural conversation of belief and persuasion with sociology, anthropology and literature once it it prepared to renounce its grand(iloquent) way of conceiving itself. Schematically, then, Rorty's critique of philosophical foundationalism has two moments: it is a critical engagement with the old philosophy — what he dubs the Plato—Kant canon — and it envisages a post-philosophical culture in which voices as disparate as Plato and Kant, the ‘bad’ Heidegger and the transcendentalizing Derrida will be thanked for their edifying books, only to be placed on library shelves named ‘Of historical interest only’ and ‘Big noise’ (Rorty, 1991a, 1991b). Dust will gather where once devotion was demanded.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.