A refreshingly clear--and at many times humorous--philosophical statement! I like his framing of philosophy, and all intellectual inquiry actually, as acts of imagination, since any effort to try to understand the world implies thinking of something new, or at least possibly new. I also appreciate the call to stop obsessing about what is "Real" and to focus on what "is" and how to increase our understanding of what "is" and our collective well being.

Rorty hinges pretty much everything on language, and while I agree that language is an important/defining part of being human, I disagree that there is no complex communication without language. I'm guessing he never had children or spent time with young infants, or ever had a close relationship with a pet. To my mind, the extent of our ability to community without language only serves to underscore his point about the ultimate impact of language. ( )

If you have not yet read Rorty, you could do a lot worse than beginning with Philosophy as Poetry. These lectures are generally accessible. Originally prepared as lectures, they move at a walking pace presenting Rorty's grand narrative of philosophy. Offering a story and vision of this scope is, I think, what Rorty likes to do best.

Michael Bérubé's introduction does many things well too. Personally, I like the way that it captures some of Rorty's mannerisms (his never dismissive now-what-am-I-to-do-with-that shrugs), but I like best that it captures something of the fraught and exciting Charlottesville scene in the 80's, which Rorty contributed to, in, of all places, a graduate English department. Bérubé tells one anecdote about the Hirsch / Rorty debate which was pretty much par for the course: high drama minus any of the ultimate resolution that many were seeking.

In Rorty's graduate seminar on Freud and Philosophy which Michael mentions, a professor from the English Department sitting in on the seminar declared that Rorty's philosophy had the rigor of what he referred to as a "California beach philosophy." (My own memory is a bit fuzzy, but Rorty's response amounted to a few words that were the equivalent of a shrug. What does one say to a criticism that reduces years of writing and work to a single, flip phrase?)

In that same seminar, after great provocation, Rorty confronted another professor who insisted, almost from the first class, on hijacking the conversation. Rorty finally warned him that he would no longer be welcome if he did not behave--a warning offered in a direct but gentle way. Civil conversation was restored. The professor chose not to return.

In what was for me the most interesting moment of that seminar, another fellow professor from the English department explained to 'Dick' near the beginning of a session why he thought he was misreading one of the books assigned for that week. Rorty considered for a few moments and agreed. He moved his seminar notes to the side and basically spun out a new line of argument on the fly for the rest of the class, following the thread suggested in the criticism. Rorty always fulfilled his role as a listener in the conversational contract with colleagues and students. Someone spoke. He listened. He actually responded to what they had said, not to what he wanted to say next. If he could not parse what they said, or if he perceived that the gap between his words and theirs could not be bridged in a reasonable number of sentences, but required a lot of unavailable conversational time, or that they were merely taking a public ride on their favorite hobbyhorse--shrug.

I can't recall the commentator who, upon seeing/hearing Rorty for the first time referred to his presence and presentation as that of Eeyore of Pooh fame. It is a deft observation. When those who have only read him finally see/hear him for the first time, they might still disagree with the argument, but they have grudgingly to admire its presentation. Rorty very much cared about the way insights were offered. Style and tone matter for professors, philosophers, and poets.

Philosophy and Poetry, like almost everything Rorty writes, captures his respect for other voices and opposing intellects. His argument is interesting and useful as well. And for some, that is enough. ( )