Comments on: Holbo on Rorty

By: TStockmann

TStockmann — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:01:19 +0000

The question waa badly phrased, since I indicated that I objected to the psturing of the rhetoric rather than the sentiment itself, although it would be fair to observe that it is more common to object to posturing when you don’t agree with the sentiment.

In specific terms, the level and type of “suffering” alleviated doesn’t particularly stir my sympathy, and I haven’t a clue whether the complicated end result of the program would be a net positive over time even in those terms. You don’t have to be hostile to the prnciple of chest-thumping appeal to end up annoyed by the thumping. Simply being unmoved by it will almost guarantee that result.

By: Larry Hardesty

Larry Hardesty — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:19:40 +0000

“And he effectively reduced suffering by arguing for his political ideals in such a painfully narcissistic and completely ineffectual fashion that they never actually affected the world”

That sounds like a plausible claim, given the arguments themselves. But it does make you wonder why 1,500 Iranians attended his lecture in Tehran.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:22:55 +0000

If it is inconvenient for you to answer my question, I understand.

By: TStockmann

TStockmann — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:59:38 +0000

Hardly an exhaustive set of choices. Another possible alternative: that an involuntary collective like a nation can’t have a moral interest in promoting the wellbeing of nonmembers. But I propose that simply for illustrative purposes. Your first alternative is interesting in that it establishes whether I can be placed within your hortatory narrative, to use Rorty’s approach.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 14:31:12 +0000

So you don’t think Pritchett’s plan would help end suffering? Or you do, and this bothers you?

By: TStockmann

TStockmann — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:20:07 +0000

By way of contrast, if Lant Pritchett succeeds in even slightly opening up wealthy labor markets to workers who lost the passport lottery, he will have done more to end needless cruelty than a million Rortys. But then, Lant Pritchett believes that the effectiveness of his favored means to that end of reducing suffering is a fact of the external world. And it is. That’s powerful.

And simpleminded, grounded in nauseating piety and a shared if arbitrary sense of fellow feeling - like most “powerful” messages. That’s how narrative works and probably why Rorty wasn’t so good at it himself.

By: Gil

Gil — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 06:56:12 +0000

“And he effectively reduced suffering by arguing for his political ideals in such a painfully narcissistic and completely ineffectual fashion that they never actually affected the world. For this, he deserves our thanks.”

Awesome!