Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
sophiepereira
Posts: 5
Joined: May 31st, 2021, 10:02 am

Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by sophiepereira »

In the introduction to Richard Rorty's 'Contingency, irony, and solidarity', he outlines the two historicist schools that he reacts to (those who advocate for self-creation and those who advocate for community/ justice). He then says that the thinker who balances these two strands and sees them as useful but not compatible together (the kind of thinker he intends to be) is the 'liberal ironist'.

How does this figure represent the balancing of these two strands of thought?

Rorty goes on to say that the liberal ironist both believes cruelty is the worst thing and understands the contingency of their beliefs, which both seem to align with the community/ justice strand of historicism?

Thanks for all the help in advance,
Sophie
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 4742
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Sculptor1 »

The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Sculptor1 wrote: December 19th, 2021, 3:25 pm The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
Egads. To effectively attack a view with which you disagree, the first prerequisite is accurately outlining that view. So you might want to discard the above comments, learn something about libertarian view, then start over.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3914
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

GE Morton wrote: December 20th, 2021, 12:06 am
Sculptor1 wrote: December 19th, 2021, 3:25 pm The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
Egads. To effectively attack a view with which you disagree, the first prerequisite is accurately outlining that view. So you might want to discard the above comments, learn something about libertarian view, then start over.
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4597
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Belindi »

I agree with Pattern-chaser. The sacred name liberty should not be used to persuade or hector.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 7:26 am
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.
You make some of the most nonsensical, even bizarre, claims, PC.

Libertarians " . . . oppose and seek to suppress any cooperative action"?

Really? Libertarians oppose, say, corporations? Football teams? Jazz bands? Dance troupes? Business partnerships? Gardening, model railroad, or athletic clubs? The Kiwanis? Flea markets? Charities? Marriages?

Cooperative actions all. No libertarian I know of opposes any of them.

Libertarians have no objections to any cooperative action --- as long as it's voluntary. What they oppose is "cooperation" secured at the point of a gun (which is usually understood to be, not "cooperation," but slavery). Perhaps you'd like to re-visit your claim and insert that qualifier, or else defend the coercion you apparently find acceptable.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 7:49 am I agree with Pattern-chaser. The sacred name liberty should not be used to persuade or hector.
That term has been used to persuade and hector since it first began to appear in the liberal tradition, Belindi. Indeed, that has been its chief role in modern political history:

"Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!"

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." (Henry David Thoreau)

"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men." (Susan B. Anthony).

Etc.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 4597
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Belindi »

GE Morton wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 12:25 pm
Belindi wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 7:49 am I agree with Pattern-chaser. The sacred name liberty should not be used to persuade or hector.
That term has been used to persuade and hector since it first began to appear in the liberal tradition, Belindi. Indeed, that has been its chief role in modern political history:

"Liberty, Fraternity, Equality!"

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

"Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." (Henry David Thoreau)

"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people - women as well as men." (Susan B. Anthony).

Etc.
I 'd rather Madame Roland "Oh liberty, liberty, what crimes are committed in your name".
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3914
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 7:26 am
Libertarianism is a misnomer. It should be called 'anti-socialism', although the hyphenation needs to be changed to properly convey the intended meaning, to 'antisocial-ism'. It is an individualist (political) philosophy which not only champions the interests of the individual, but also opposes - and seeks to suppress - any co-operative action.
GE Morton wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 11:52 am You make some of the most nonsensical, even bizarre, claims, PC.
With you as a contributor, there is little point in offering a balanced perspective. If we did, then the result would average out as a Libertarian festival.

GE Morton wrote: December 22nd, 2021, 11:52 am Libertarians have no objections to any cooperative action --- as long as it's voluntary. What they oppose is "cooperation" secured at the point of a gun (which is usually understood to be, not "cooperation," but slavery). Perhaps you'd like to re-visit your claim and insert that qualifier, or else defend the coercion you apparently find acceptable.
Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Belindi wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 8:18 am
I 'd rather Madame Roland "Oh liberty, liberty, what crimes are committed in your name".
That is itself hectoring and persuasion.

BTW, what crimes would those be?
Ecurb
Posts: 1425
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 12:34 pm
Belindi wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 8:18 am
I 'd rather Madame Roland "Oh liberty, liberty, what crimes are committed in your name".
That is itself hectoring and persuasion.

BTW, what crimes would those be?
Guillotining all those counter-revolutionaries wasn't a crime. It was all legal, I suppose.
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 9:14 am
Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.
Families, tribes, communities and any other groups have no interests other than the interests of the individuals who constitute them. Nothing has value to them that does not have value to the individuals who constitute them. And of course, those interests and values will differ from individual to individual, regardless of any groups to which they may belong (or be defined into).

And, yes, if some individuals are forced to pursue the interests of other individuals, at the cost of or in disregard of their own, that constitutes slavery.

You can't defend such slavery by arguing that "group interests" outweigh the interests of individuals, because groups are nothing but individuals. Nor can you argue that the "collective interest" outweighs individual interests, because modern societies are not collectives; they're only collections, i.e., groups. There is no "collective interest."
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3914
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 9:14 am Yes, libertarians only co-operate if it suits them, taking no notice at all of how valuable and necessary (to the family/tribe/community/etc) that co-operation might be. And their childish response to such necessary and valuable actions is to complain about coercion and slavery! I feel a more mature attitude is appropriate, and this is where I differ from libertarians.
GE Morton wrote: December 23rd, 2021, 2:33 pm Families, tribes, communities and any other groups have no interests other than the interests of the individuals who constitute them. Nothing has value to them that does not have value to the individuals who constitute them. And of course, those interests and values will differ from individual to individual, regardless of any groups to which they may belong (or be defined into).

And, yes, if some individuals are forced to pursue the interests of other individuals, at the cost of or in disregard of their own, that constitutes slavery.

You can't defend such slavery by arguing that "group interests" outweigh the interests of individuals, because groups are nothing but individuals. Nor can you argue that the "collective interest" outweighs individual interests, because modern societies are not collectives; they're only collections, i.e., groups. There is no "collective interest."
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not a political one. It 'legitimises' immoral behaviour, offering absolution in advance, without contrition or guilt, similar to the corrupt 'indulgences' offered by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages. It takes the admirable Wiccan Rede - "And ye harm none, do what thou wilt" - and, like Crowley, removes the all-important constraint, so that it becomes "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It underlies and 'legitimises' (again) the too-common saying "It's nothing personal; it's just business".

Libertarianism is the Sociopaths' Charter. It denies the necessity for co-operative behaviour when the Individual concerned would prefer not to comply. It's perhaps a little surprising (?) that it is most common in America, a strongly Christian State, as it directly contradicts some of the main principles of that faith. And it denies, too, the concept of "collective interest", as you describe so well above.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
GE Morton
Posts: 3214
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by GE Morton »

Pattern-chaser wrote: December 24th, 2021, 1:17 pm
Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, not a political one. It 'legitimises' immoral behaviour, offering absolution in advance, without contrition or guilt, similar to the corrupt 'indulgences' offered by the Christian Church in the Middle Ages.
Political philosophy is a sub-category of moral philosophy. Unlike political science, which is concerned with the structure and mechanisms of government, political philosophy is concerned with the morality of government --- with its moral justification and the morally justifiable scope of its powers, and with the duties it has to citizens and they to it. The latter are the central concerns of "libertarianism."
It takes the admirable Wiccan Rede - "And ye harm none, do what thou wilt" - and, like Crowley, removes the all-important constraint, so that it becomes "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". It underlies and 'legitimises' (again) the too-common saying "It's nothing personal; it's just business".
Well, there is another of those bizarre claims of yours. I know of no libertarian who removes the "do not harm" constraint from his/her conception of the scope of freedom. Can you cite one, or did you just pluck that from thin air? I've certainly included it in every articulation of freedom I've given.
Libertarianism is the Sociopaths' Charter. It denies the necessity for co-operative behaviour when the Individual concerned would prefer not to comply.
Of course. Cooperative behavior is only "necessary" for certain tasks in which all members of a group have an interest. It is not "necessary" at all for someone who has no interest in that task. So you have to address the issue raised previously, and which you ignore in this post. Per what principle does Alfie acquire an obligation to pursue Bruno's interests? Per what principle is Bruno justified in forcing Alfie to pursue his interest?

"Sociopaths' Charter"? Well, if libertarians did indeed reject the "do not harm" principle, as you asserted, that would be a fair characterization. But they don't; that assertion of yours is gratuitous and false.
It's perhaps a little surprising (?) that it is most common in America, a strongly Christian State, as it directly contradicts some of the main principles of that faith.
Well, I'm not a Christian, and so not much concerned with Christian principles. But perhaps you can spell out which of those principles "libertarianism" contradicts.
And it denies, too, the concept of "collective interest", as you describe so well above.
You are ignoring the context. There is no collective interest of (modern, civilized) societies. Those societies are not collectives. But there are thousands of collectives, and thus collective interests, within societies. Baseball teams, orchestras, business partnerships, etc., etc., are all collectives whose members share some interest and work cooperatively in its pursuit.

It would be helpful, PC, if you would directly address points made, specifically and one at a time, in the posts with which you disagree, instead of ignoring them all and responding with ad hominems ("Sociopath's Charter"), false or out-of-context attributions ("denies collective interest"), and gratuitous claims ("removes the do not harm constraint").
User avatar
foxermcbride
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: December 26th, 2021, 12:27 am

Re: Rorty's Liberal Ironist

Post by foxermcbride »

You are correct. In fact, I believe Rorty would have joined with the community/justice historicists in many of their projects. However, he would deny the community/justice historicists any claim to some type of moral or epistemological ahuman foundation (even "Justice" itself). In so doing, he would join the self-creationists!
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021