Pan-Relationalism, Depth. RR 5-6 [I realize now, btw, that I was ahead of myself this afternoon when I said we were officially reading these lectures today.]
1. Rorty says "we bourgeois liberal have Dewey" and no longer need who to fend off anti-Enlightenment irrationalism? Agree? How would you characterize the difference between their respective conceptions of enlightened philosophizing?
2. How should we not answer "what purpose is this description supposed to serve"?
3. Why are numbers a good model of the universe?
4. What do pragmatists think is the aim of inquiry? Do you think their aim is true? (Elvis Costello pun only partly intended.)
5. What's pointless about things-in-themselves?
6. What did Darwin make hard for essentialists and Kantians?
7. Why must pan-relationalists (& pragmatists) not accept the making/finding distinction their critics would like to impose on them?
8. Socrates/Plato said knowledge of something deep would let us escape from what?
9. In what sense, for a pragmatist, are philosophy's traditional problems verbal?
10.
No comments:
Post a Comment