The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Richard Rorty and the End of Metaphysics
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:32 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife im done here (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848704) |
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:33 PM Author: indigo police squad absolutely devastating (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848716) |
 |
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:33 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife Richard Rorty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848719) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:41 PM Author: soul-stirring mauve legal warrant Rorty, Richard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848773) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:45 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife he is dead. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848812) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:46 PM Author: soul-stirring mauve legal warrant i stopped reading philosophy after i got to James and Rorty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848823) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:47 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife sounds like they did their job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848828) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:48 PM Author: soul-stirring mauve legal warrant i think i was already thinking what the pragmatists were thinking and was just waiting for someone with more intellectual horsepower to write it down. life is flame, do what works, pretend that x is important and it will be, pretend to be y and you will be (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848840) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:52 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife exactly my experience. ive been reading royce lately though so im not totally off it but its not the same (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848873) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:55 PM Author: soul-stirring mauve legal warrant never read him (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849236) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:57 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife very cr if you're a philocuck (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849254) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:50 PM Author: rambunctious business firm resolved: pragmatism is the only pragmatic way to approach life and the human condition (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848854) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 12:53 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife are you a non-correspondencemo? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36848882) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 1:59 PM Author: rambunctious business firm yeah i think all pragmatic people are, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849266) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:02 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife i dunno about putnam. he thinks that usefulness is a mark of correspondence ("no miracles" in the phil of science). my impression is that even if you want to hold some kind of internal realism you still have a correspondence feature, even if its conceptually relative/non-universal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849285) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:21 PM Author: rambunctious business firm i agree with that (your 2nd sentence), i'm just not sure if that qualifies as a coherent correspondence since it's relative. i mean to think about anything you need some kind of correspondence framework. of course as a pragmatist i don't think this universal coherence really matters anyway (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082252&forum_id=2#36849389) |
|
Date: September 20th, 2018 2:40 PM Author: Heady Water Buffalo Knife I think what you're saying is that the purpose of any conceptual scheme or formalism is utility, not correspondence.
I think that commits you to the position that the same expression in two dissimilar conceptual formalisms can be equivalent as long as their functional properties are equivalent.
My response is that the ability and extent to which a given formalism creates utility is actually dependent on the structure of the expression itself, specifically, the extent to which the structure of the formalism corresponds to the structure of its referent.
Although that's basically all to restate putnam; the formalisms that work the best are the ones the correspond the best. |