TNR Online | The Professor of Complacence = (print)

From: Subject: TNR Online | The Professor of Complacence (print) Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:09:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960"; type="text/html" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/082001/blackburn082001_print.html TNR Online | The Professor of Complacence = (print)

The = Professor of=20 Complacence
by Simon Blackburn =

Issue Date: 08.20.01
Post Date:=20 08.14.01

Rorty and His Critics
edited by Robert B. Brandom
(Blackwell, 410 = pp.,=20 $29.95)=20

I.=20

If you visit a mighty good school, you might find some big = words=20 written over the gate: words such as Truth, Reason, Knowledge,=20 Understanding, or even Wisdom. If the school is old enough and in = another=20 country, you might even find a mention of God, though this word = may now be=20 an embarrassment, or regarded as purely decorative, or if the word = was=20 once there, perhaps it has been erased and something secular = substituted.=20 But nobody would want to erase Truth, Reason, and the rest, would = they?=20

Richard Rorty would. Like Nietzsche more than a century ago, he = believes that these words have inherited the same illusory magic = that once=20 hovered around the idea of a deity. They are supposed to represent = something Big. They stand for an ideal: the accurate = representation of=20 reality. This reality functions in our minds as a sort of = non-human=20 authority, to which we have to answer, and compared with which we = are=20 always in danger of falling short. Yet mankind must now realize = that there=20 is no such authority. Previously, even when the deity was swept = away by=20 the Enlightenment, Truth remained in its place, the last = absolute-but now=20 it, too, has to bow out, as the world-historical moment turns, and = humanity continues its long journey to emancipation.=20

That journey, Rorty continues, was once regarded as taking us = from=20 ignorance to knowledge, or from darkness to light. But we should = no longer=20 hold such a view of our development, for "no area of culture, and = no=20 period of history, gets Reality more right than any other." The = best that=20 the journey can accomplish is to cement the freedom to speak our = minds,=20 and to usher in ever-renewable vocabularies expressing new = adventures in=20 self-understanding. For words are tools, and the point of our = utterances=20 is not to answer to the Forms or to represent the intrinsic nature = of=20 reality, it is to meet our needs. Words are Darwinian adaptations, = not for=20 copying but for coping.=20

Once this is thoroughly understood, even the words on the = school gate=20 can be given a kind of use, although it is a poor shadow of what = those who=20 inscribed them there intended. Demythologized, those grand terms = serve=20 only as what Rorty has called "wistful, top-level protestations of = good=20 will." Polemically, however, they are available as weapons of = reaction,=20 when those who defend old vocabularies and old ways of life invoke = them to=20 repel any new kids on the block. (Rorty is well aware that this is = how=20 outraged defenders of what they take to be the real standards of = Truth and=20 Reason will fulminate against him, and he enjoys the fulmination.) = But the=20 principal use of these words is as badges of social solidarity. We = describe things as true when we agree with them, and we describe = people as=20 reasonable when their minds move in the same ways as our minds. = When the=20 words on the gate are read properly, therefore, we should not talk = about=20 the love of the truth but about the love of solidarity. The = highest human=20 good is conversation, and truth is what audiences let you get away = with.=20

he collection of essays that Robert Brandom has assembled is = but one of=20 many books prompted by Rorty's startling, brilliant, and extensive = writings on these themes. Its contributors are as heavy a bunch of = philosophical hitters as could well be gathered, and Rorty's = responses to=20 his critics display his extraordinary gift for ducking and weaving = and=20 laying smoke: he may have arrived at Paris, but he got there by = way of=20 Princeton, and it shows. The volume is also an indicator of = Rorty's=20 significance, in the academy and in the culture at large. For his=20 "anti-foundational" voice is not a lone voice. It is not even a = minority=20 voice. One hears it across large tracts of the humanities. Rorty = is just=20 the militant tendency of contemporary pragmatism, the Hezbollah of = our=20 disenchanted culture.=20

Rorty likes to project the image of himself as leading a = movement ("we=20 pragmatists"), and he has generously hailed many of the = philosophers here,=20 such as Donald Davidson and Hilary Putnam, as standing alongside = him,=20 demolishing the school gates. So it is nicely ironic to see them = making=20 their excuses, like nervous guests fearing that a revel has gotten = out of=20 hand. Rorty, a gentlemanly host, is wonderfully polite and patient = with=20 these excuses, while not concealing his conviction that they are = basically=20 worthless. In his own mind, philosophers who argue against him are = typically trapped in ways of thinking (what he would call a = vocabulary)=20 that, he believes, should simply be abandoned.=20

For this reason, Rorty seldom really argues back. He has = arranged=20 things for himself so that he does not have to do so. For he = denies that=20 philosophical progress comes about through argument. As he rightly = reminds=20 us, argument requires premises and conclusions that belong to the = same=20 conceptual family. Argument, it follows, is for conservatives. And = real=20 progress, by contrast, means "offering us sparkling new ideas or = utopian=20 visions of glorious new institutions," disabusing us of our old = routes of=20 inference and feeling, enabling us to forget where we once were. = It does=20 not mean anything so flat as mere argument.=20

This is a pretty formidable defensive tackle. When anyone = produces a=20 good reason for rejecting Rorty's views, he seems poised to say = that his=20 whole project is to transcend the logocentrism that endorses any = such use=20 of reason. A number of contributors to the present volume = recognize this=20 trap, and instead tackle pragmatism on its own ground, asking = whether we=20 could expect any good to come of some kind of apr=E8s-truth = culture.=20 Jacques Bouveresse talks movingly of the plight of decent people = in an=20 intellectually rudderless Paris, where "we have some experience of = what=20 happens when rhetoric, the power of words, and the cult of = personality=20 prevails over reason, logic, and the rules of argumentation." = Akeel=20 Bilgrami follows Daniel C. Dennett in warning against the comfort = that=20 Rorty gives to the irresponsible and the subversive, to the = bullshitters=20 "prepared to speak or write in the requisite jargon, without any = goal of=20 getting things right nor even (like the liar) concealing the right = things=20 which he thinks he has got."=20

Rorty's retort is that he, too, can distinguish between the = frivolous=20 and the serious:=20

That is a serious and important distinction. = It is well=20 exemplified in the contrast between the silliest, least = literate,=20 members of academic departments of literature and honest, = hardworking,=20 intellectually curious, laboratory scientists-just as the = distinction=20 between self-righteous priggery and tolerant conversability is = well=20 exemplified by the contrast between the sulkiest, least = literate,=20 members of analytic philosophy departments and honest, = hard-working,=20 intellectually curious, literary critics. =

The point that these virtues and vices are spread across all = sections=20 of the academy is surely right. But the point is also a dodge, = because the=20 real question is whether, in the apr=E8s-truth culture, = they are=20 still virtues and vices.=20

Rorty denies that love of truth is a special virtue by taunting = his=20 opponents that they have no way of telling who loves truth and who = does=20 not:=20

What behavioural evidence is relevant? I doubt = that=20 there is more hope of accumulating relevant behavioural evidence = here=20 than there is when attempting to answer the question "Is he = saved?" or=20 "Does he love the Lord his God with all his heart and soul and = mind?"=20 The question "Do you value truth?" seems to me as about as = pointless as=20 these latter questions.

Again, he has a point. We are apt to describe anybody as loving = truth=20 when they agree with us, both as to our certainties and as to our = doubts.=20 But Rorty does not pause to consider whether, in the salons of = pragmatism,=20 into which truth is denied entry, the question "Is he honest and = curious?"=20 must go the same way as the question "Does he love truth?" And he = does not=20 pause to consider whether, while the question "Does he love = truth?" may=20 indeed be intractable in general, it is highly tractable when the = truth in=20 question becomes concrete. If you have not committed a crime, you = would=20 prefer to fall into the hands of a police department that loves = the truth=20 about who commits crimes, and loves it more than it loves just = coping by=20 cozying up to the judges and juries who can give it a successful=20 prosecution record.=20

II.=20

Anyone wanting to protect the school gates should study the = general=20 rhythm of the interchanges here, for Rorty is a formidable = opponent, and=20 few of his critics do much damage. Typically, they start by = saluting=20 Rorty's intellectual ancestors, especially a great trio who = ushered in our=20 age of philosophical doubts about meaning, observation, and = theory:=20 Willard Quine, Wilfrid Sellars, and Thomas Kuhn. They congratulate = Rorty=20 for a number of negative things that they all share: mostly a = dislike of=20 old distinctions, such as that between defining a vocabulary and = using it,=20 or between observation and theory, or between essence and = accident, or=20 thought and language, or fact and value. But then they draw back. = Let us=20 not go overboard, they say. There is still such a thing as getting = it=20 right and getting it wrong. You can say that Oswald acted alone = when he=20 did, or you can say it when he didn't. You may want to know = whether=20 genetically modified crops are dangerous, and it requires biology = and=20 laboratory trials and experimental protocols to discover the = answer, not=20 crystal balls or current linguistic usages. We are not merely = trying to=20 get a consensus when we are trying to find what is true. We are = trying to=20 arrive at the facts.=20

Rorty replies that we should not belittle efforts to establish=20 consensus. So where the critic sees two possible goals (getting = everyone=20 to agree and getting at the facts), Rorty sees only one. There is = no=20 significant difference between convincing your peers and getting = at the=20 truth: "The guise of convincing your peers is the very face of = truth=20 itself." But then what is left of facing the facts? Well, facing = the facts=20 is literally nonsense: we can face the Eiffel Tower, but facts are = not=20 things with a place. (If they were, as Wittgenstein remarked, we = could=20 move them; but while you could move the Eiffel Tower to Berlin, = you cannot=20 move the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris anywhere at all.) = Facing=20 the facts can mean only making judgments, and this is a social = activity,=20 enabled only by the rules that govern the language that you speak = with=20 your peers. By forgetting this, Rorty's critics forget the = philosophical=20 heritage that they believe themselves to share with him. They = remain=20 slaves to one version of what Sellars called the myth of the = given, which=20 is the idea of the transparent, incorrigible presence of = individual fact=20 in individual mind.=20

Rorty has made this counter many times, and he makes it again = and again=20 here. It is exactly parallel to the reply that Stanley Fish, a = similar=20 thinker, makes in his ongoing spats with Ronald Dworkin. Dworkin = believes=20 himself to be offering a specific conception of the right method = for=20 finding the legal truth, steering carefully between the arid = desert of=20 positivism (the myth of the given, in this instance the view that = legal=20 facts are transparently there in black-letter texts) and the = licentious,=20 anything-goes method of pragmatism or legal realism, which = counsels judges=20 to make law up according to the exigencies of the moment. Fish = replies=20 that each of these poles is a mirage, and therefore so is = Dworkin's advice=20 on how to steer between them. The first is a mirage because any = text needs=20 understanding, or taking up to apply to the problem in hand, and = this=20 understanding will be the work of the judge's mind, not of the = text all by=20 itself. The second is a mirage because any "judge" who pays no = attention=20 to statute or precedent has stopped judging, and has started to do = something else, such as parodying the whole institution. So = Dworkin's=20 advice is about as valuable as the advice not to carry a baseball = bat=20 while playing tennis: law as integrity is no more a distinctive = recipe for=20 law than absence of baseball bats is a distinctive approach to = tennis.=20 Judges can only play according to the legal rules, which means = attempting=20 to gain the consensus of fellow members of the interpretive = community by=20 applying statute and precedent to the case at hand. Hence too = there is no=20 open space between "trying to find the right verdict" and "trying = to=20 convince fellow judges." There is no difference that makes a = difference.=20

This is a nice reply. It is so nice, in fact, that it raises = the=20 suspicion that a rather important concession has been made. When = Rorty=20 first substitutes the goal of consensus for the goal of truth, we = shudder=20 at the outrageous image of someone valuing apr=E8s-truth = chit-chat in=20 the coffeehouse above serious work in the library or the = laboratory. It is=20 this that is so shocking. But now it turns out that there is a=20 qualification for membership in the coffeehouse. The talkers in = the=20 coffeehouse are to be masters of the library or the laboratory, = just as=20 the legal interpretive community includes only masters of the = Constitution=20 and of precedent.=20

It also turns out that we cannot achieve the consummation of = consensus=20 with them simply by mutual narcissism, each fixing his gaze on = another and=20 chiming in with his sayings. For in order to achieve consensus = both our=20 gaze and that of our peers must be fixed on the point at hand. If = the=20 issue is whether Oswald acted alone, the conversation must take = place amid=20 archives and news footage. If it is whether genetically modified = foods are=20 dangerous, it must take place in the biology lab. This is what is = involved=20 in being honest and curious-indeed, it is what is involved in=20 understanding the issue in the first place. But, having gotten = this far,=20 why not also describe ourselves as people who want to know what=20 happened-or as people who want to find the truth, and a good thing = too?=20 Why demolish the school gate?=20

f Rorty feels entitled to say as much as he does, why can he = not say=20 more? Consider the virtues that he does regard as verifiable, such = as=20 curiosity and seriousness. We can imagine a community that can = winnow out=20 those who are not really curious about, say, whether Oswald acted = alone,=20 or not really serious in their inquiry into whether genetically = modified=20 crops are dangerous. Perhaps these dilettantes get their opinions = from the=20 newspapers, or reveal alarming tendencies toward emotionally = distorted or=20 wishful thinking. Rorty describes such people as being = "unconversable"-but=20 they are only unconversable, of course, if the conversation is of = a=20 particular type. Bullshitters are typically voluble, and to some = audiences=20 readable. The "theorists" whom Alan Sokal exhibited as having no=20 understanding whatsoever of the science that they loved to invoke = in their=20 writings had big enough audiences. The failure that they = supposedly=20 illustrated is much better located by words such as "incompetent" = or=20 "incurious." But "incurious" just means not curious about the = point at=20 hand, that is, whether Oswald acted alone or whether GM food is = dangerous.=20

Rorty sometimes tries to deflect this, suggesting that = incuriosity=20 denotes only a lack of receptivity to new vocabularies, as if, = say,=20 enjoying Finnegans Wake would be a recipe for a better = history of=20 the Kennedy assassination or a better understanding of GM food. = But this=20 is smoke, since it is a focused curiosity that matters. Similarly, = "incompetent" means being unable to execute procedures for finding = out=20 whether Oswald acted alone or whether GM crops are dangerous. And = if we=20 can detect those people in this state, then the question stares us = in the=20 face: why can't we say more? Why can't we describe these people as = having=20 no concern, or an insufficient concern, for the truth, or an = insufficient=20 ability to find the truth? In other words, with proper attention = to the=20 notion of an inquiry, and to the notion of a community of = inquirers, any=20 remaining air escapes from the pragmatist balloon, and the circus = leaves=20 town.=20

This, indeed, is how Fish sees it: he believes that once we get = this=20 far, theory becomes irrelevant to practice, which goes on exactly = as=20 before. Rorty does not want to efface himself so quickly. He likes = to=20 imply that pragmatism really makes some practical difference, as = we learn=20 to oppose metaphysical prigs who suppose that reality has one true = intrinsic nature, which only one final language, such as the = language of=20 theoretical physics, will represent. These prigs believe that = there is a=20 single Book of Nature, which true method will eventually read. = When the=20 philosophical going gets rough, Rorty frequently resorts to = mocking this=20 ideal.=20

But his mockery is only a way of making things easy for = himself,=20 because you do not need to subscribe to any such monolithic idea = of truth=20 in order to honor everyday truth and the love of particular = truths. This=20 is because there is every difference between the language that you = choose=20 to use and the truth or the falsity of what you say with it. = Consider the=20 enterprise of mapping a tract of land. A tract of land does not = demand to=20 be mapped in any way at all. There is no Book of the Landscape, = for the=20 landscape has no voice. It is utterly silent about whether your = map should=20 show contours or geology or houses or temperatures or anything = else. What=20 you choose to put on your map depends purely on the use to which = you will=20 put the map. Up to this point, pragmatism and Darwinism rule = unchallenged.=20 But this is only half the picture. For once you have made a = choice, there=20 are things to get right or wrong. Once you have chosen what to do, = it is=20 as if the landscape indeed acquires a voice, and it certainly has=20 authority, since your map-making must attempt to make your map = answer to=20 it. If you purport to show cliffs but show none where there is = one, then=20 you have gotten the landscape wrong.=20

Rorty would prefer to say that the problem with your map is not = one of=20 how it represents the landscape or corresponds to the landscape, = for those=20 are metaphysically priggish terms. The problem, he wants to say, = is just=20 that users of your map are unlikely to cope very well. He fails to = see=20 that we do not have to choose between these things: we can have = both.=20 Users of the map without the cliff will not cope well when they = come to=20 the cliff, and we can explain why. It is because the map, with = respect to=20 the cliff, misrepresents the landscape.=20

Rorty is unlikely to accept the cartographic analogy. Perhaps = we can=20 compare maps with landscapes, but we cannot compare our own best = theories=20 with the truth, since we have no access to the truth except in the = terms=20 provided by our own best theories. We cannot "stand outside our = own=20 skins," as Berkeley saw in the seventeenth century when he said = that an=20 idea can resemble only another idea. Faced with this objection, it = is=20 natural to protest that sometimes we check our words not with more = words,=20 but with observation and prediction. But Rorty and his critics = typically=20 share a mistrust of those notions. They suppose that relying on = them is=20 too much like the positivist view of law, according to which black = letters=20 steer us independently of our own capacities to give them = meanings.=20

This is the myth of the given, again. Rorty belongs to a = generation of=20 American philosophers who learned from Sellars that observation is = itself=20 a creature of language: your map determines how you see the = landscape. So,=20 they conclude, there is nothing but maps, maps all the way down, = and there=20 is no independent access to anything mapped. The philosophy in = this book,=20 and much of it is of a very high quality, testifies to the = difficulty of=20 remembering that sometimes it is not maps but cliffs. It is = ironic,=20 therefore, that one of Rorty's central pieces of iconoclasm is the = death=20 of epistemology, of the theory of knowledge, since it is precisely = in that=20 theory that these issues are fought. This is what epistemology is = all=20 about.=20

III.=20

Justifying something to your peers is not the same thing as = getting it=20 right. It is a political achievement to make sure that wherever it = matters, in science, history, law, politics, or ethics, the people = to whom=20 you need to justify yourself have their gaze pointed in the right=20 direction, and so will accept something only when it is likely to = be true.=20 Like any political achievement, it needs careful protection. This = explains=20 why the words went onto the school gate in the first place.=20

Sometimes Rorty seems to recognize this, though it seems to = clash with=20 his ambition to demolish. At any rate, he remains fond of saying = that if=20 we look after freedom, truth will look after itself. In a free = world, he=20 seems to think, only the people with the library tickets and the=20 microscopes eventually get into the coffeehouse. This might sound = like=20 Mill's belief in the invincibility of truth--but Mill is much more = the=20 kind of stalwart who wrote the words on the school gate in the = first=20 place. Without those words, it seems romantically optimistic to = expect the=20 achievement to sustain itself. Rorty has this optimism. He has a = soft spot=20 for Deweyan visions of the psalm of the people, as muscular = workers stride=20 shoulder-to-shoulder down limitless vistas into ever more glorious = sunrises, which they greet with ever more creative vocabularies.=20

Lost in this Whitmanesque glow, it is easy to forget that there = is no=20 reason whatever to believe that by itself freedom makes for truth, = any=20 more than there is to suppose that work makes one free. Freedom = includes=20 the freedom to blur history and fiction, or the freedom to spiral = into a=20 climate of myth, carelessness, incompetence, or active corruption. = It=20 includes the freedom to sentimentalize the past, or to demonize = others, or=20 to bury the bodies and manipulate the record. It is not only = totalitarian=20 societies that find truth slipping away from them: the = emotionalists of=20 contemporary populism, or the moguls of the media and the = entertainment=20 industries, can make it happen just as effectively. That is why = Plato felt=20 that he had to forge the vocabulary of reason and truth in = opposition to=20 democratic politics; and that is why it remains vandalism to rub = the words=20 off the school gates. Orwell thought this, and anybody worried = about such=20 things as the ideology of those who own the press, or the = Disneyfication=20 of history, should think it too.=20

orty does hold political views, and he holds that there is a = definite=20 if subtle relation between his pragmatism and his political views. = He is=20 celebrated for recommending "liberal irony" as the proper = standpoint on=20 life, the liberalism being the doctrine that "cruelty is the worst = thing=20 we do," and the irony arising from the knowledge that our = vocabularies are=20 transitory and contingent and always on the verge of obsolescence. = Critics=20 have been infuriated by the aestheticism or the weightlessness = that=20 Rortyan irony seems to suggest; but the more important point is = that irony=20 seems philosophically out of place in the philosophical situation = that=20 Rorty recommends.=20

Irony, in Rorty's teaching, is supposed to follow on the = realization=20 that your vocabulary is always provisional, that better ways of = saying=20 things might come along one day-but it is hard to see why this = ought to=20 beget irony. Unless you are the victim of an apr=E8s-truth = cartographer, you=20 do very well to take the map seriously when it says there are = cliffs, even=20 if you foresee future maps that do not bother about them. The = hill-walker=20 who finds this thought destabilizing, and takes an ironic = detachment=20 toward his map, is likely to do worse. It is hard to imagine, of = course,=20 how any future maps that do not indicate cliffs could be useful to = walkers, but then it is hard to see how a successor = vocabulary--say, one=20 that does not talk in terms of suffering, or equality, or freedom = or power=20 or justice--could be of much use in politics. So I think that we = can=20 safely set the irony aside.=20

And irony aside, it is a little difficult to know what to make = of such=20 liberalism. A political philosophy that simply reminds us that = cruelty is=20 the worst thing that we do has not really gotten very far; and = there is=20 nothing especially liberal about it (are conservatives for = cruelty?). In=20 fact, it is doubtful whether Rorty really believes it in any case. = In this=20 volume he enthusiastically endorses a very different view = advocated by=20 Robert Brandom. This holds that "mere mammalian pain"--a phrase, I = should=20 have thought, that trips off the tongues only of people largely=20 unacquainted with what it describes--does not matter in itself. = Brandom=20 holds that "pain, and like it various sorts of social and economic = deprivation," have only a "second-hand" moral and political = significance.=20 They are important only because they distract people from the = activity=20 that really matters: the pragmatist activity variously described = as=20 "vocabulary-mongering," or "contributing to the Conversation," or=20 indulging in "sprightly repartee and the production of fruitful = novel=20 utterances." Pain matters because it incapacitates us for = sprightly=20 repartee! It turns out that cruelty is not the worst thing that we = perpetrate. The worst thing is distraction.=20

here are very few really original ideas in moral philosophy, = but this=20 must surely be one of them. Its excuse, I suppose, is the fear of = a Brave=20 New World in which comfortable zombies live their satisfied = porcine lives.=20 And similar ideas do have a philosophical pedigree, right back to = Plato=20 and to the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics, in which = Aristotle=20 extols the virtues of the life of intellectual contemplation, = which to=20 most contemporary philosophers simply means conversation with the = cork in.=20 But even in his paean to contemplation Aristotle does not hold = that=20 beautifully beguiling the leisure of the theory class is the only = measure=20 of value, and distracting us from it the only measure of evil.=20

To get the full measure of that doctrine, imagine on the one = hand=20 spending your time as a victim of pain: think of a "mere" = mammalian pain,=20 or if that is too hard to imagine from the comfort of the = armchair, get up=20 and put your hand on a hot stove. Imagine similarly a life of = prolonged=20 disease, starvation, humiliation, fear, and loss. And then = imagine, for=20 contrast, spending life doing quiet things that you might enjoy, = such as=20 gardening or golf. Now get yourself to believe that there is = nothing to=20 choose between them, since in each case there is the same = distraction from=20 vocabulary mongering and sprightly repartee. What a wonderful = state of=20 mind it must be--how stoic, how lofty, how intellectual--whereby a = visit=20 from the secret police, or a cancer, or the loss of a child, is on = all=20 fours with more time as a couch potato. This is a world in which a = walk=20 around the concentration camp is no more disturbing than a walk = around the=20 course at Augusta.=20

I do not suppose that Brandom and Rorty really believe this = inhumane=20 doctrine. It is just that the abstractions take over, so that at a = particular point in the Conversation it sounds like a sprightly = thing to=20 say. One cannot help feeling that this is only because we are in a = political coffeehouse with no very exacting standards of entry. It = is not=20 the sort of thing you could get away with in a well-ordered = cartography=20 school, or even a department of history, or politics, or = literature, if=20 literature includes Harriet Beecher Stowe and Dickens and Orwell = and Primo=20 Levi. It is not even something you should get away with in a = philosophy=20 department, provided that we can hold onto our gateposts.=20

SIMON BLACKBURN is professor of philosophy = at the=20 University of Cambridge. His recent books include Think = (Oxford=20 University Press) and Being Good (Oxford University = Press).=20

=20

RELATED = LINKS

TNR = Online's Books=20 and Arts Newsletter
Free=20 news, links, and special features. E-mailed weekly.=20

John=20 Dewey's Philosophy
A young=20 Randolph Bourne lionized his mentor-- before the = repudiation=20 came. (1915)

Professor=20 Whatever
Simon Blackburn = on the=20 emptiness of Umberto Eco.

Ladies,=20 Truth, and Logic Simon=20 Blackburn on A.J.=20 = Ayer.

------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/images/sitewide/logo_tnrtext.gif R0lGODlhdABIALP/AP7+/dTTye3s5Ovk2/n28/37+vft6vPPzeOTkOy1s8cHBsktLNVRT95zcvvw 8P///ywAAAAAdABIAAAE//DJSau9OOvNu/9gKI5kaZ5ouhFHkhwDoc70nDCLoi/NUf/AD6GhWDAQ CMbOF2w6J0MFIzEx5BSNp5ZmQDS8UkMFsRNvz6QD4qpjmCnkIhNN7xgauQVYwVQz4wtzdYMYAwt6 YmQMElFUD4CChHUFA0lfihNECBIGSlQFkJKDLHg6plKZCo6dqgelcqJ1RFJ7bamrSmxFCDKxTy0t hwkFj6eLEkS4pkbDvk6kugy9cbbIqpxKUi4HMMTOXDdtSDluEtSo1spF2UYD3yqVuQ0JZgdh5sa3 2KYM7N7vJVzl6dGL0yEz5449SLZvioEEOxwAHEHgRh50FTotQJgv3T5HgP8kTvzQ5QqDFhiRENPI kZ++B6xARhzZQaCpBjLsKTy0EkfLaguvwfSEr4hImhcKVNyBRMGmBzon9Ou5sShQhkP5WCsCAKmF Sg0aKGlADOLTqBKmwjxoFSNWAirX6sjilZHNQzocmZWA9oGRAqDuFXPp0QK1SD8IDPgH4mGpI9w0 SdgLFR0oKqzKDb7q1ALEuYxrdFFbQc0lBO4mxGtDb8IBPZM7V1Y4oQBEzQlTVeVEbUFoGuGmULD9 apkPm0USFJQw4EjssxgpEPDZloG3WUe8ZJPyO4WAeZr+jWat5ooRcgnwMDFwgFjzp5T7JkBAleMR 0udOLUjQ1QFiEiws9QX/Fjg90NxcrW3FmhgQ/VHVe8/xhZFaLPHVmljMbeeCC2Y4gINvJ7CHxwBm xUGXTotV8BlBE5DBBB5iQPhAfBj9NdRuFIiVHhvWDecALCVQsgYOfJSoCgE5yfYAYLGRBcUBOLz4 oHMzytYXhdTVduApPUjQFQBGYNLVCHeQA6UUOTTlRRb2PHWHXlhIYBs7UsZIJY079WjFbiKyoYdI tu1XQJhLkBCOAu7kkiYgm7QpIXxxVmYcMlW9Bil0xxTwhYRurMaPIAiokRyhgZRAgKZaKYHSF0co JepZsFV5on5/8FLlpZzKWRARPPip2Zg6xYHDEVgAcNQIRPiAA4mIwGSR/w6wQjrrpA/0Mp1seBp2 ijhmaIpAV/YMyA8ZhyxwbAjJ+sUHewWMh5eVsUJ04nlAcjILrlXSlt4yoR4wpgMN7AkuFmQ8ZmJ7 JaSLRE6l6CEqvNJycsAdQI4HLV/74ZPFaDwu2VW7BeAw5MADzoeFf+eOoOoEh5JTFHRPFVwBr39s +5RiK5FTnDYpArBnADgkYATJLhZwQMp2rKkjVO15epK81d7L10lQ5UAXxkDOIoWScmq9TAIOlBWl iUHbGKy5aezcmdEN50BFuFnJRoAZK+5T6GA8RMqI1j28MGbVefS23yGuWNHe3ySVt8t2CBzqEEOW ysW1nDJLejcg4SBgAP+J2zlpwSEBHDLkDkLPROah93hdRFiOpGtIo6Y8taQ3cFsOJDUOOJCHn/wl JYUheuhBc1hIe1B6r1jIoDUPPsxnTqkEZPyZbG82KeEOpW4mEXFhzVP8kr+LzgeYWSCOLBY+ECFN UM2aQ9caYoTcfOwS0gV11VO4aNX3GRQgReiBKBUAzEcC9eBjfViZ2jFuEL8uUQM69osUu4oRA9Tx LwOru8Z/TICV2ygve1AiR1kKBAoxaA2C1lMRFraDhe5w4Aq9+wFWDIHAa4RsGTmhD1+QxLj6pVBO qEuOAwjoAZQ1ASshq+EnWOiOFnhDDNGjX2VmRReLzQVhdQmKIx7QD+X/2ZCFmJmYAZ7IBhROETlC JCJNEpgEE9owLNnYBGBI1At7SLF2VthWD1zolQSmx42f8KKS1EC3U5hxSyfjY10SWDgt5mguLGtA as7xlAHIIQnLUGMWCwMTzTnSQGsAShJS4zXobGs/F8wiQwwwxgN4sXX6mUapUBU7NWxnP/7aJAcg 5wMZoGqJ+iGlVrioH96lUpcemY83frkkFg4zWYEqJvMUicyZXSM9qWHmDfuRF2tw0xRgCxuTqvkB hgiNCcysCD0+s4nSfS1s5CzgNTO2JCTGZh1cOmY8NWBO2TATCvlBJTX3uctrSsGX6RISGAugSYKC oJ9V0RQui4NKh87AVZw5eFERlrFHi9IAo0JZHtg8KsN5YmFHptggSU8AOfPcJJcrrYF6XMElsDU0 pgkrAo96BzCcllSn8xADwHTg0xoMgBsGONUETlHULTC1qU94KlRLEAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/images/sitewide/xc.gif R0lGODlhAQABAID/AMDAwAAAACH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/images/sitewide/bg_leftnav2.gif R0lGODlheAAMAJH/AMDAwNAwLMwAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAB4AAwAAAJKnI8mG+APo5y02otz Tnws0WjiSJYm1CVfeLbuO6bICtf27cgHjfd+rPMwfsQiJSgEGZdLJI8J7TmH0aptqrRqXVjW9gvU PcFkTAEAOw== ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/images/sitewide/bg_leftnav.gif R0lGODlheAAMAJH/AO/v3swAAP///wAAACwAAAAAeAAMAAACR5SPFhvgD6OctNqLc05csKaF4kiW UJd85sq2JIqo7kzXAHzI9s6HuMLoCYeUnydITBKNOqXTxkQ+p7PogoptWUHZ7mjrDYcKADs= ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960 Content-Type: text/css; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.tnr.com/tnr.css FONT.articlehead { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 20px } FONT.articlesub { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px } FONT.author { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px } FONT.articlecontent { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; = FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 19px } BLOCKQUOTE { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 13px } FONT.articleheadnext { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 20px } FONT.articlesubnext { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px } FONT.authornext { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px } FONT.printheader { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 14px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 20px } FONT.printsubheader { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px } FONT.header { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 14px } FONT.subheader { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px } FONT.tableheader { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px } FONT.tablesubheader { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px } FONT.content { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } FONT.contentbold { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 15px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } FONT.date { COLOR: #666633; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 13px } FONT.frame { COLOR: #666633; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 13px } FONT.footer { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.headerlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.smallerlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.headlinelink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.subheaderlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.sidebarlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.bullet { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.nextlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 11px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.footerlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.icontext { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.bigeventlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } #sidebar { LEFT: 0px; POSITION: absolute; TOP: 1000px; VISIBILITY: hidden } FONT.headline { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.articlelink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; = FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.articlelinkOLD { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; = FONT-SIZE: 16px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 19px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } FONT.indent { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', times, serif; = FONT-SIZE: 13px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px } FONT.tnr { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 14px } A.authorlink { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } FONT.headlineblack { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } FONT.bigevent { COLOR: #990000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 15px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 18px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } FONT.sidebar { COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.headlinelinkblue { COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, sans-serif, arial, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 12px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 16px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.sidebarlinkblue { COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } A.headerlinkblue { COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; LINE-HEIGHT: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: = none } A.subheaderlinkblue { COLOR: #333366; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, arial, sans-serif, helvetica; = FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; = TEXT-DECORATION: none } ------=_NextPart_000_00C0_01C1CCEB.C66D0960--