Re: Rorty on socialism (fwd)

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> We have to clarify the intellectual tradition Rorty belongs before taking
> at face value his conflation of Marxist rhetoric with Nazi rhetoric.

What conflation of rhetorics? What he said was:
>>Visitors from postrevolutionary Eastern and Central Europe
are going to stare at us incredulously if we continue to use the word
"socialism" when we describe our political goals.
Indeed, given the suffering they have endured under regimes
that called themselves Marxist, our Eastern European friends are likely to
feel that Marxist rhetoric is no more respectable than Nazi rhetoric.  Just
as we would be justifiably suspicious of anyone who spoke of "Hitler's
excesses," so our colleagues in Czechoslovakia and Hungary will be outraged if

we continue to speak, as many Western intellectuals still do,
of "Stalin's excesses.'' <<

While it would be possible indeed to pursue that many parallels
in the rhetoric of German national socialism and of Leninism,
that is not a project taken up in this article by Rorty.



> While one can be a Darwinian without being a Nietzchean (what is implicit
> in Rorty), one can not be, in principle, Darwinian and Christian or any
> other religion (unless you are one of those creationist scientists)--the
> two irreconciables Rorty try to reconcile in the name of moralism...

If you are suggesting Rorty is simply reattempting
Dewey's project rather than offering a historical
context, you are just being silly.

You also would apparently be surprised by how
many people who call themselves Christian also
accept Darwin's insights. Not all Christians are
fundamentalists; in fact most are not. (I do not
intend this observation as a defense of whatever
view they do hold.)


> Given
> his moralism and religiosity, why should we take seriously Rorty's
> comments on socialism...or his adulterated version of science.

The kind of religiosity you attempt to attribute to
Rorty is exactly the kind of foundationalism he
rejects. He is certainly in no more (and I would
say much less) difficulty than materialists who
cannot explain why they should take even
their own moral notions seriously (e.g., Marx).

Furthermore, you once again treat ad hominem
as a valid form of argument. (I.e., you say we
shouldn't take seriously argument X of a person
who believes Y or did Z *because* of Y or Z.)
A most unfortunate habit.


> I thought
> we transcended religion in this forum.

That just reflects your ignorance of PK thought.
See Paul Davidson's statements on free will,
which although somewhat hidden are still both
recognized and acknowledged, most recently on pkt
in an exchange between Davidson Barkley Rosser.
(I am simply reporting his view, not advocating it.)

Alan Isaac