/lit/ - Literature

>>16719486
Rorty is in a way right to make his attack on epistemology the epitome of his attack on philosophy. Part of my task is to show that an effective response to this attack amounts not merely to a defense of the possibility of philosophy but of Platonism as well. Or, to put the point tendentiously, the defense of philosophy and of Platonism is one complex defense, with a number of interrelated parts. Philosophy, understood as having a distinct subject matter, begins with a distinction between appearance and reality, one of Rorty’s fundamental rejected dualisms. Stated otherwise, this is the distinction between epistemic and nonepistemic appearances. For if reality is just as it appears, or if things do not appear otherwise than as they are, a distinct subject matter disappears. At this elementary stage, philosophy is indistinguishable from any other explanatory discipline. And, indeed, the indistinctness of philosophy and natural science among the pre-Socratics has always been remarked upon by historians of ancient philosophy. 14 Rorty is correct that if the grounds for a distinction between appearance and reality are not established or are undercut, then natural science can fare no better than philosophy. As we shall see in the third chapter, Plato in his Phaedo takes the decisive step of separating the subject matter of philosophy from natural science by critically examining the explanatory model prevalent among his most illustrious Naturalist predecessors.
The initial reply to Rorty is, accordingly, one to be made both by philosophy and by natural science prior to their division. It is a reply that seeks to defend the cogency of explanation in general and whatever form of representationalism is required for explanation. Suppose that someone offers an explanation for a natural phenomenon, say, a volcanic eruption. Apart from the acceptance of this explanation, one may reject it in favor of another explanation or, like Rorty, reject it on the grounds that any explanation requires an illicit representationalism. Rorty is obviously in no position to reject any explanation on the basis of a better one; he must reject all explanations, whether the explanans falls within the realm of natural science or the realm of philosophy. His rejection, springing from his critique of representationalism, leads him at various times into quietism, relativism, skepticism, or pragmatism. I take it that the quietism is equivalent to disengagement from all philosophical and scientific discussion, which simply places him among the vast majority of people in the world for whom this book and any other even remotely like it is not written. As for the relativism and skepticism, I shall have much more to say in later chapters. That leaves the pragmatism to be dealt with here.

Is there any literature that is mostly conversations with people the character met during his travels or something of sort? It could be fiction or nonfiction.