Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers (Philosophical Papers, Vol 1) (Volume 1) (Paperback)

~ (Author) "There are two principal ways in which reflective human beings try, by placing their lives in a larger context, to give sense to those lives..." (more)
Key Phrases: representational ists, field linguist, unforced agreement, Cambridge University Press, Donald Davidson, Oxford University Press (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

Rorty has added an introduction to 14 papers previously published between 1980 and 1989. The three main sections offer a contention that knowledge, including scientific knowledge, is not a matter of truth or falsity, but of acquiring useful habits of action for coping with reality; an examination of D. Davidson's views on explanation, truth, and language; and an exploration of the "communitarian" idea that a "democratic, progressive, pluralist community" can avoid questions about a mind- or language-independent reality by striving after "intersubjective agreement and novelty." Although the essays contain points worth pondering, Rorty's writing is somewhat opaque and his argument lacks concrete detail. This reader remains unpersuaded that communitarian manipulation can satisfactorily replace rational inquiry into objective reality.
- Robert Hoffman, York Coll., CUNY
Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Review

"This book is stimulating and challenging. The topics covered are diverse enough to capture the attention of almost any academic audience. Rorty introduces a variety of fresh and exciting ideas." Arnold Lorenzo Farr, disClosure

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 236 pages
• Publisher: Cambridge University Press (November 30, 1990)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0521358779
• ISBN-13: 978-0521358774
• Product Dimensions: 8.8 x 6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.4 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #305,269 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in this category: (What's this?)

  #96 in

  Books > Nonfiction > Philosophy > Reference

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Unputdownable. A thumping good read., January 26, 2001

By	Roy Macarthur (York, United Kingdom) - See all my reviews

I was amazed by this book. Having read several of his works since I would recommend that you should start reading Rorty with this book.

You do not need to be a philosopher to read this book, or even be very interested in philosophy. All that is required is an interest in any of: History, science, politics and literature. I am pretty sure that Rorty's ideas about the common ground that these disciplines can be seen to occupy will be invigorating.

5.0 out of 5 stars Crucial reading for Rorty students, August 17, 2009

By	Neo-Pragmatist - See all my reviews

Rorty is a love/hate philosopher. I love him so there is your full disclosure.

Love him or Hate him ORT is important reading. If you read nothing but PMN and ORT you would be well equiped to begin your apology/critique.

4 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars anti-scientific?, June 15, 2004

By	Brian Will "thomas_will" (Port Hueneme, CA United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

A reader, Lechman, wrote here that "All scientists and engineers would reject Rortys ideas as extremely sloppy and antiscientific." Having not read this particular book [I gave it 4 stars to keep the score as I found it], I still can comment that Rorty's claims against science have nothing anti-scientific about them. As a pragmatist, Rorty would certainly not hold science to be without value, and I seriously doubt that he--in this book or in any other--challenges how scientists go about their work. Really, it's just not much of concern to science whether scientists believe themselves to be revealing metaphysical truth or not--they'll still get their work done.

But the question remains, 'what is the truth-value of the results produced by science?'. Many modern people, stuck in circular thinking, attempt to justify science with scientific premises. Even the biggest advocates of science in philosophy realize that that's not tenable.