A friend recently accused me of hyperbole for calling Richard Rorty
the #1 philosopher of our era. I'll stick by my characterization. Many
philosophers have said Rorty is not a philosopher; that is because Rorty says
philosophy can not seek truth. How can we seek truth if there is no "fundamental notion" of
truth.
The same was said about Clifford Geertz as an anthropologist because he said anthropology can not collect scientific data; anthropology will at best be a "thick description" of another culture.
I love Rorty for his self-honesty, if
nothing else. But he also speaks to the philosophical understanding of
our time. Rorty is a modern relativist.
Rorty says there is a commonality to all truths, 2x2=4, e=mc2, Michelangelo, Merce Cunningham, Tolstoy, Moby Dick, Ecclesiastes and Darwin. But their shared commonality is the only meaning of "truth".
Everything we perceive is created by dialog among living people;our dialog is bolstered by the passed on traditions of our own culture's previous dialogs. We perceive based on our era, our peers, our geography, our society, our language and every aspect of our context. How else could we perceive anything?
Rorty is an admitted "romantic" and he therefore has Lefty tendencies. I'm not the least romantic, so I have commercial tendencies and I am anti-Lefty.
Rorty looks to Dewey
to understand dialog. To Dewey dialog is inherently democratic and thrives on
openness, transparency and diversity of opinion.
My contribution to understanding dialog is the recognition that there is great value of including financial numbers in dialog. Financial numbers create a basis for broader, common and more substantial dialog when carried out among people who understand financial numbers.
Business people appear to be more comfortable with each other, more effective in operating in the empiric world and more socially successful. The reason is their common language of financial numbers.