When I suggested PMN, I was actually thinking of a twist on a popular question about philosophy in general: if you were stuck on a desert what island, what Rorty book would you choose to have with you? Therefore, I chose the more difficult one because it seemed the one most likely to keep yielding results. However, if the question were framed in terms of what book I would recommend to someone who only had time to read one book by Rorty, I would recommend Philosophy and Social Hope which was put together for a general audience.
At the same time (and in terms of the subject of philosophy as writing, and even though the book reveals itself a little too readily, I still see some value in going back to Philosophy and Social Hope (along with those study points I do at the “library” (in that I see the possibility of being able to get to know (to focus more on (Rorty as a writer. I mean he does have an attractive style (that kind of provincial/bourgeoisie generosity similar to that of Jaspers: the kindly professor (I hope to absorb into my own.
*
“Living with this kind of cognitive dissonance is simply part of being alive in this jarring moment in history, when a crisis we have been studiously ignoring is hitting us in the face— and yet we are doubling down on the stuff that is causing the crisis in the first place” -Klein, Naomi (2014-09-16). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (p. 3). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.
As I go further into Klein’s book, I am starting to recognize the very real and topical applications of the pragmatic agenda as described by Rorty in Philosophy and Social Hope -among others I’m sure. I’m starting to see the folly involved in the Cartesian subject/object dichotomy in that it is what props up our ability to act as if we are this ethereal substance distinct from the objects that occupy our space and allows us to think that we are perfectly able to overcome any problem those objects might present to us. It’s why, for instance, the religious right can act like we’re perfectly free to keep exploiting our environment since “God will save us”, while the secular right can act as if the new god, the invisible hand of the market (and the technology it has used to addict us (will step in. As Klein writes:
“Or we look but tell ourselves comforting stories about how humans are clever and will come up with a technological miracle that will safely suck the carbon out of the skies or magically turn down the heat of the sun. Which, I was to discover while researching this book, is yet another way of looking away.”
What both come down to is our ability to think of ourselves as somehow distinct from the world of objects that surrounds us: as some ethereal substance that cannot be touched. And it is one thing, as Rorty describes, for such a state to result in a stunted philosophical process. But I have to wonder if Rorty realized that his point, in terms of man-made climate change, may well be a matter of life and death for our species (all species (as a whole.
*
We can also see the import of Rorty’s insistence on philosophy as literature (or writing (as well. As Klein points out, climate change denial is that point at which reason fails. We simply cannot expect to reason with what is basically the equivalent of addicts. On top of that, we have the analytic snobs that are too busy slobbering all over themselves and looking for a place to hide and jack off at the latest technology to actually address the issue of manmade climate change. Now I haven’t read that much of them; but when have Searle, Dennett, or Pinker ever addressed the issue of our possible self destruction? I mean: thank you corporate sponsorship for saving our universities as state funding was depleted because our politicians didn’t want to raise taxes on their country-club buddies.
And doesn’t it put a kind of shine (an aura even (on Rorty’s pragmatic/continental/literary approach in that we have come up against a wall in which reason fails. And when reason fails, all that is left is force. And what force could be more gentle than good writing: that which resonates and seduces?
*
I don’t want to pat myself on the back here, but much to my surprise, I find my approach to understanding as a writer (I do not consider myself a philosopher (tends to be confirmed by writers like Klein who are capable of a lot more research than I am. Nothing I have seen in Klein’s book surprises me. And this is because I have always worked to try to understand the other side in terms of how their logic must work -for instance: the logic of Capitalism. And I mainly bring this up not to brag, but to point to the potential effectiveness of Rorty’s pragmatic/continental/literary approach in the face of our present crisis.