Visnovsky Emil

In this contribution to the Common Knowledge symposium on Richard Rorty, the author attempts to identify what he calls “the heart of Rortyism.” Beginning with Rorty's query, as an undergraduate, about “what, if anything, philosophy is good for,” Višňovský associates this question, as Rorty did throughout his career, with the question of the meaning of human life. On the basis of this association—the association of a seriously, consistently pursued metaphilosophy with a defense of humanity against all comers, including theology and science—Rorty moved methodically through the arguments of the “Linguistic Turn” analysts, the pragmatists, the antirepresentationalists, and postmodernists until he achieved an anti-absolutist, antiauthoritarian humanism all his own.

This chapter examines Richard Rorty's conception of what it means to be a public intellectual in the modern world and how this conception is related to his pragmatist approach to philosophy. It also discusses the influence that this conception and approach had on Central Europe. In doing so, it outlines for the first time, and in some detail, the close contact that Rorty had, through his books, and more personally through conferences, lectures, and seminars, with philosophers in countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.

Richard Rorty interpreted religion as a historically constituted part of culture. As a philosopher, he sought primarily to understand religion's sociocultural nature and role. His approach was sociocritical, intellectually sympathetic, and humanistic. The chapter provides an account of Rorty's key phases in his philosophy of religion. During phase one (the 1990s), he was primarily interested in whether, in a democratic society, religion should simply be a private matter or also one of public concern (and if so, then in what way and to what extent). During phase two (post‐2000), his thinking on cultural politics developed more broadly, and he wrote about “romantic polytheism,” the future of religion, and so on. In his writing from phase one, he portrays himself as a “secular humanist” as well as an atheist and, in his writing from phase two, as a “non‐theist” and “anti‐clericalist.”

The paper discusses the relation of philosophical pragmatism to empiricism as the backdrop to understanding human being. The crux of the problem is the relation between language and experience. The author argues that pragmatist empiricism is based on the concept that human practices are transactions, which includes both non-linguistic as well as linguistic practices. Within pragmatist anthropological philosophy, experience is a complex of transactions between humans and reality. Humans are both natural/physical and cultural/linguistic beings, whose living experience involves transactions with both the natural and the sociocultural environment. The dualism between language and experience is false and should be abandoned.

1. Introduction The influence of Richard Rorty has not faded since his demise more than a decade ago. Some of his works have been published posthumously (Rorty 2010; Rorty 2016), others have been republished in valuable collections (Voparil & Bernstein 2010; Rorty 2014) and some of his unpublished work has already appeared too (Małecki & Voparil 2020). Important international symposia have been held around the world (see e.g. Penelas & Voparil 2014) and the Richard Rorty Society (RSS) was fou...

The paper focuses on the pragmatist image of humanity based on a re-reading of the philosophical “manifesto” of Wilfrid Sellars in which he became entangled in the dichotomy between “scientific” and “manifest” images. The key to solving this problem, according to the author, is the new pragmatist understanding of science as a cultural practice, which provide us with a new framework for transcending this dichotomy. By reconstructing Sellars in an anthropological rather than a scientistic way and by drawing on humanistic philosophical intentions that are present both in pragmatism and in Sellars, it becomes possible to outline a concept of “science with a human face.” The purpose of all kinds of images, including scientific ones, is to serve the enrichment of human understanding and life.