Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle Reading App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Apple
Android
Windows Phone
Android
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
See the Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.
This shopping feature will continue to load items. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading.
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.
Product Details
Hardcover: 224 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (February 24, 1989)
He wrote in the Preface to this 1989 book, “This book is based on two sets of lectures: three Northcliffe Lectures given at University College, London, in February of 1986 and four Clark Lectures given at Trinity College, Cambridge, in February of 1987…Parts of this book skate on pretty thin ice---the passages in which I offer controversial interpretations of authors whom I discuss only briefly… But in other parts of the book the ice is a bit thicker.”
In the first chapter, he states, “We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there, and the claim that truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.Read more ›
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
He wrote in the Preface to this 1989 book, “This book is based on two sets of lectures: three Northcliffe Lectures given at University College, London, in February of 1986 and four Clark Lectures given at Trinity College, Cambridge, in February of 1987…Parts of this book skate on pretty thin ice---the passages in which I offer controversial interpretations of authors whom I discuss only briefly… But in other parts of the book the ice is a bit thicker.”
In the first chapter, he states, “We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there, and the claim that truth is out there. To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.Read more ›
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
You have to read it because it is, well, Rorty. But I find these essays peculiar, poorly argued, and idiosyncratic (the last term would not have been considered a negative by Rorty). It explains the odd purposes he sought in his life, and what he found in Derrida and others that satisfied his particular quest, but it seems far from an exemplary life project.
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
This book has provided me with a label: "liberal ironist." which fits me comfortably. The author has provided me with many insights into my relations with other people. He also clarifies my understanding of other philophers whose works I found almost impenetrable, especially Heidegger and Derrida. I am so enthusiastic that I have bored family and friends. His praise of poets and other creative people is most gratifying.
Many years ago I studied the pragmatists. Richard Rorty has brought that education up to date and amplified it.
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
A thoroughly refreshing juxtaposition of political thought and (anti-)metaphysics. This very well may be Rorty's best work. He reaches his pinnacle of literary criticism and investigation of philosophy's role and purpose in life. As usual, Rorty compares big names across genres such as Heidegger Orwell, Plato, Nabokov, and Derrida. The result is one of the most beautiful works that espouse Pragmatism. It's become something of a life guide for me. It is a reminder to seek solidarity, accept our contingency, and bask in irony.
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Probably the best thing about "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity" is that it is written so well. Like Rorty's other books it has a way of making philosophy less arcane than it otherwise appears. Other raters here have outlined his project better than I can and illustrate how Rorty builds upon his ideas in the book "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature." I only want to add the observations that, (1) it is no surprise Rorty feels he has to address religion's influence in this book, and that (2) philosophical objection to Rorty appears quasi-religious in nature. Philosophical critics of both books who are consumed with the nagging perception that physical facts of reality seem indeed to hold up well to the correspondence theory of truth are steeped in a Western religious world view.
That world view and its implications for Rorty's concept of solidarity carries critical import for understanding his project. For many of his critics that world view seems to be validated by epistemology. As some have pointed out, we do the math and the rockets fly. So some correspondence is working, apparently. In the realm of ethics, the same relationship of language to reality has apparent truth as well. In assigning verbal names to these correspondences, we superimpose a chimerical essence we call "Truth," if Rorty is right. But that "Truth" we assign has no real correspondence to what is out there in the world, in his argument. This "Truth" constitutes an unverifiable relationship because we do not know how reliable the "mirror" is, our cognitive door to perception, and this reliability is the crux of philosophical disagreement with Rorty and Dewey and other pragmatists.Read more ›
Comment
Was this review helpful to you?
Yes No
Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
![]({"http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C7HDK876L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[224,346],"http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41C7HDK876L._SX305_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[307,474]})
