just wrote this essay(took me 30 minutes) and turned it in. any fagmatists in here?

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2552300]

Richard Rorty, in a rather profound analysis of philosophical history, has given a rejection of
traditional “foundatitionalist” philosophy in favor of a pragmatist account concerning the validity of
human rights. He denounces some of philosophy’s greats (such as Nietzsche, Plato, and Kant) as having
gone about philosophizing in the wrong way, especially in relation to ethics. Their concern has rested on
“knowing”, on having metaphysical justification for our moral beliefs. Their mission has been to lay
foundation, an ahistorical foundation and one which would necessarily have to transcend the human
ego in order to warrant legitimacy. Plato found his justification in the world of the forms. Kant found
justification in a transcendental kind of metaphysical rationality (with a capital R) which would bind the
moral person in a relation of duty. In opposition to these two, but still in the foundationalist camp (the anti-rationalist side of foundationalism)
we have Friedrich Nietzsche, who thought that there was no metaphysical support for traditional morality. Having reached this conclusion,
having perceived traditional morality as a manifestation of the will to power of the weak in defense
from the strong, more specifically as a “slave-revolt” in morals, starting, of course, with the Jews, he
turned his back on ethics al-together.

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2552304]

The debate between Nietzcheans and Platonists and Kantians continues to this present day.
Philosophers still toil to find a metaphysical backing for their moral beliefs, struggling to externalize their
convictions and render them as Rational and impregnable, with Nietzsche’s disciples continually tearing
them down. Here Rorty steps in and denounces this persistent debate as futile and outmoded. He
believes that we must stop trying to concern ourselves with trying to find out the “real nature of
humans” and instead focus on trying to better our world. The debates between Nietzscheans and
Platonists have gotten us nowhere, especially when considering that the real problem lies not finding
the nature of humans but rather in the inclusion of all humans in a moral contract. An example he gives
is the gallant and highly moral serb, the Neo-Platonist Serb who has deep ethical convictions yet
still commits atrocities because he does not consider Muslims as “human”. We can see how arguments
regarding human nature are useless in regards to ethical decisions if we cannot even agree on who gets
to be a part of “humanity”. Thus, Rorty believes that we must drop such foundationalist enterprises in
favor of practicality, in favor of arriving at a democratic utopia, a world where human rights are upheld
regardless of the fact that they aren’t the “metaphysical and inalienable sorts of things which all humans
poses in virtue of their nature”. Instead of seeking to find this sort of knowledge, we should be
concerned more with sentimental training, teaching people sympathy and spreading security in the
world to a point where people can recognize that the similarities between humans greatly outnumber
the differences. This practical approach to ethics is one which Rorty believes will lead us to utopia.

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2552308]

Though it grieves me admit it, Rorty is right. There is no way to find a metaphysical
backing for morality and the debate will only wind back on itself in a continually repeating fashion, with
no progress being made whatsoever. The realization of certain truths, Nietzchean truths if you will,
might cause one to completely abandon the human rights project. This is why, and it gives me great pain
to say this, we should stop exposing people to Nietzsche altogether. Only if we favor a kind of
quietism(at least concerning foundationalist philosophy) prescribed by Rorty, will we be able to establish
utopia. We must completely drop the quest for metaphysical knowledge in favor for a pragmatic
headlong mission into reinforcing governmental structures which give basis for human rights, regardless
of the fact that these ‘rights’ are hollow and synthetic. Now when I say ‘we’ I actually mean ‘people
other than me’, because I’ve written this paragraph with a very half-hearted conviction, mainly in hopes
of not coming off as an immoral ass, though I hope that one can see the truth of a text regardless of the
author’s hypocrisy.

[Anonymous No.2552323]

Pragmatism=Death of Philosophy

[Anonymous No.2552331]

Well that's attractive formatting.

tl;dr

[Anonymous No.2552336]

Rorty is wrong. So are you.

[Anonymous No.2552338]

>>2552300
I'm not going to read that, but skimming it, it seems to be an exceedingly shallow and perfunctory. Anyway, pragmatism is on the right track but it stops a station to short to get to its destination.

[Anonymous No.2552352]

Why are you posting this? It's a lower than average essay, and it's badly written.

[Anonymous No.2552375]

>>2552308
>The realization of certain truths, Nietzchean truths if you will,
might cause one to completely abandon the human rights project. This is why, and it gives me great pain
to say this, we should stop exposing people to Nietzsche altogether.

What kind of fanatical humanist crap is this?

[Anonymous No.2552382]

>>2552338
>exceedingly shallow and perfunctory

Much like your criticism, hm.

[Anonymous No.2552394]

>>2552382
Why offer substantial criticism of an insubstantial piece?

[Anonymous No.2552408]

>>2552323
Pragmatism = doing philosophy to address the philosophical problems one encounters in life = the best philosophy

Also I'd classify Nietzsche as proto-pragmatist in the sense that he didn't attempt to justify his ethics universally, instead he appealed to "his readers" and trolled the rest into thinking about his work and coming up with novel thoughts.

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2552516]

>>2552394

haha...i should have clarified that this was more of a summarization of rorty than anything(we get one each week), hence 2 paragraphs laying out his paper.
i posted to acquaint people with rorty and pragmatism, which I could get excited about were i not such an asshole.
you fags wish you write like me

[Anonymous No.2552540]

Already did that shit.

[Anonymous No.2552562]

Does pragmatism involve lying to yourself?

[Anonymous No.2552563]

thank god rorty is dead.

[Lettuce Read !!98FIOVbXZpJ No.2552660]

"rather profound analysis"
lol wat

"some of philosophy’s greats"
lol wat

That's about as far as I read.
This is clearly not an academic essay. This is high school polemics.

[Anonymous No.2552671]

>>2552660

>"some of philosophy’s greats"lol wat

You're trying too hard.

[Anonymous No.2552676]

>mentions human rights
>ctrl + f positive law
>ctrl + f natural law
>0 results

[sate !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 No.2552691]

>>2552676
>>2552676
>>2552676
>>2552676

suck my dick

[Anonymous No.2553095]

whooaoaooaoooohhhhh

[Anonymous No.2553120]

too wordy

[Anonymous No.2553193]

Pragmatism is always a safe refuge. Each passing year, sheer habit reinforces it.

[Anonymous No.2553227]

>>2553193

What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.2553263]

So does this mean i get free stuff from the government or not