First off, you are banned, not only for chickening out of following up on your bluster that you "do not entirely agree with everything" I've said -- but, even worse, for not even
so much as acknowledging my direct demand that you do so.
Nevertheless, I will address your frustrations, not for
your sake (since I can tell by your cowardice and impudence that you have no hope of understanding me), but for the sake of everyone else reading this.
ProdigalTim wrote:You should give Rorty a chance
A chance to do what? To waste my time and bore me to death? He did not introduce a SINGLE new concept in philosophy. He did not offer a SINGLE new insight, i.e. he was not a philosopher at all -- merely a popularizer and at the same time a bungler of ideas which had already been extensively -- and CORRECTLY -- elaborated by others decades and centuries before he was even born.
ProdigalTim wrote:he actually takes Nietzsche quite seriously, at least in the books I've read. He sees him as an essential voice in disabusing people of platonic silliness and accepting the limits of 'truth'.
It is impossible to "take Nietzsche seriously" if you are a proponent of democracy, "equal rights" and other herd illusions. All Rorty does is popularize a few of Nietzsche's ideas which it seems to him (wrongly) that they do not threaten his much-beloved "libertarian" prejudices. He is just too stupid to see that it is in fact these very ideas, which effect the destruction of the "platonic silliness", which pave the way for the destruction of his precious "libertarianism". The difference between Rorty and other slave theorists (e.g. Russell, Popper, et al.) is that Rorty is a bit more honest and a bit more intelligent than them, so that he can at least acknoweldge that there is no rational basis for, no way to ground his prejudices in some "universal truth". And that's where he stops and abandons philosophy (since he finaly realizes that it cannot serve him to FORCE his ideals on others) and turns to "literature", i.e. to bed-time story peddlers, telling you to read George Orwell and other novelists so that, if you are not already entirely dominated by the herd instinct, you will become so after being suitably brainwashed by them (i.e. “tamed”, “weakened”, “discouraged”, “refined”, “pampered”, “emasculated”).
ProdigalTim wrote:I'm not sure what the context was in the interview you mentioned, but I can tell you it's not the whole story.
The whole story is what I just gave you. As for the interview, here it is:
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2008-0 ... he-en.htmlPractically every other sentence in that article is a gross idiocy, but I will only point to this one:
Rorty wrote:Nietzsche's critique of egalitarianism is unoriginal and uninteresting. Experience has shown that high culture, and the expression of individual genius, remains possible even in mass democracies, countries in which the rulers are chosen by the mob. None of the eighteenth and nineteenth century predictions that mob rule would result in the vulgarization of thought and life have come true.
"Experience has shown", lol. EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THE EXACT OPPOSITE, IMBECILE! (-- as I will be demonstrating at length in an essay I will be publishing in the next couple of days titled
On the Genealogy of "Art Games"). In fact Rorty himself is part of this "vulgarization of thought" which he claims has not happened -- he himself contributed his little bit of effort towards this vulgarization, with the result being little imbeciles such as yourself who, in order to make time to read such drivel as "Contingency, irony, and solidarity" will leave the works of the masters untouched.
ProdigalTim wrote:As for your having a 'method', we're probably talking past each other.
No,
I am talking whilst you are throwing mouthfarts at me.
ProdigalTim wrote:I'd say anything that has intentionality has a 'method' in that, in attempting to achieve goals, they must do so in a particular way rather than some other way. How you choose to go about achieving your goals is your method.
So you have basically taken the concept of "method", which has meaning only in conscious action, and applied it also to
unconscious action, where it is meaningless. In other words you are mouthfarting.
ProdigalTim wrote:The above quotes are the ones I had in mind when talking about your gender/sex comments. I did misrepresent you in saying you 'were bowing to pressure'. I apologize. I'm still not sure exactly how you can talk about 'women' or 'fagots' as if they're a single thing when you also say that there's a continuum involved.
Dude, there is a continuum EVERYWHERE -- this is what "flux" means. But words are not continua -- they are fragments of this flux. As fragments therefore they are NECESSARILY "binary, essentialist" tools, but tools with which we need to work OTHERWISE WE CANNOT COMMUNICATE. It goes without saying therefore that when I talk about "women" I am not referring to every human being that has a vagina, but to the MAJORITY, the VAST MAJORITY even, of human vagina-holders. But the fact that there are exceptions does not in any way, as the imbeciles like you would have it, that there is no rule -- on the contrary, they merely reinforce the fact that if there are exceptions there HAS GOT TO BE A RULE -- despite the fact that neither rule nor exceptions are objectively localizable (for this would mean to separate them from the flux, something which is impossible).
So there's nothing "essentialist" or "binary" in my analysis, nor will there ever be -- it's just that people with poor reading comprehension skills are incapable of using the signs that I give them (the words) in order to reconstruct inside their brains the, let us call it
fluxial movement of my thought process.
ProdigalTim wrote:Perhaps this is just a semantic misunderstanding: are you defining woman as biologically female in the above or is it a matter of self identification or is it a matter of what the individual believes their "vital function" to be?
More nonsense, as if the bullshit you spew makes any difference to what I am saying. You are still desperately trying to avoid facing
the reality of the rule I am describing. What you want in the end is to reduce reality to "just" a "semantic misunderstading" so that you can retain your prejudice that everything is equal to everything else and that therefore value judgements (such as for example "women are stupider than men") are impossible.
But they are not, and no amount of pseudo-philosophical muddling will change that.