Sunday, June 10, 2007

Richard Rorty, R.I.P.

Richard Rorty, one of the preeminent American philosophers of the 20th century, died on June 8 at the age of 75. Obituaries can be found here and here.

Rorty was among the faculty at Princeton with Donald Davidson and others when it was the unquestionably reigning philosophy department in the nation and was a principle figure in the Anglo-American analytic tradition especially as infused and influenced by American pragmatism. Rorty’s work and later career moved to what both critics and admirers might have called a “post-philosophical” perspective, a view influenced by Wittgenstein and others that there was, if you will, less there than meets the eye in philosophy as traditionally understood and practiced in the academy. However his philosophical views may have shifted over time, he remained committed to a progressive political perspective which nonetheless at least had the salubrious advantage of finding serious fault with the likes of Foucault.

Much as I like to criticize contemporary academic philosophy, to some extent for the same reasons Rorty found the field confused and wanting, I remain convinced that philosophers have shaped human society and even human thought, itself, more than anyone else throughout history. There are no emperors or generals whose influence compare to the influence, for better or worse, of Plato or Aristotle; and in more modern times I continue to find, however bastardized, misunderstood or unacknowledged, the works of Kant, Wittgenstein and a very few others continually influencing our “original” thinkers in virtually every other field of thought. Many contemporary scientists are scornful of philosophy, but philosophy gave birth to science and, my criticisms aside, it is far easier to find a philosophically naïve scientist than a scientifically naïve philosopher.

Few people will have ever heard of Richard Rorty. I didn’t know him but I did meet him once during his days at the University of Virginia. He struck me as someone who had followed Socrates’ admonition that the unexamined life is not worth living and was more than happy with the career and the life that advice led him to pursue. We should all be that fortunate.

5 comments:

Grotius said...

There are no emperors or generals whose influence compare to the influence, for better or worse, of Plato or Aristotle...

I'd say Napoelon was as influential as either. Of course he was in a way working in tandem with Kant.

Grotius said...

BTW, just thought you might be interested to know that because of our back and forth on philosophical topics you've prompted me to read more philosophy.

D.A. Ridgely said...

I'm happy to hear that. If you are reading more modern (i.e., 19th to 20th century) philosophy, I would strongly recommend John Passmore's A Hundred Years of Philosophy as the indispensible guide for the Anglo-American analytic tradition up to around 1950. (There is some coverage of the Continental tradition for that period, too.)

For that matter, if there is anything as good as Passmore for contemporary philosophy (last 50 years or so) I wish someone would point it out to me for my own edification.

Grotius said...

Right now I've fallen into four categories (which are to some degree related):

Spinoza

Leo Strauss

The Pre-Socratics

Hume

I've said this to a number of people, Strauss is a very interesting figure. He poses a number of serious problems for anyone with an individualist or libertarian frame of mind.

Anyway, I'll buy that book.

Grotius said...

BTW, I've been meaning to buy this. It may be a little too of a beginner's text for yourself, but it might be good for others.