Home – Home – Jornals – "Philosophy of Education" 2015 number 2

The article deals with the distinction made by R. Rorty of two types of philosophy: edifying and systematic, which correlates with that of analytical and continental philosophy. One aspect of the opposition of analytic and continental philosophy concerns the style of presenting the teachings and theories, methods of appealing to readers, ultimately, in the organization of the discipline. The essence of edifying philosophy, according to Rorty, is to maintain a conversation, rather than to seek objective truth. In order to make such a division among philosophers plausible, Rorty was forced to introduce yet another distinction, on normal and revolutionary philosophers. It is shown that, to justify his dichotomy of «systematic philosophy/edifying philosophy», Rorty was forced to discuss a number of other dichotomies: «analytic philosophy/continental philosophy», «systematic philosophy/didactically philosophy», «normal philosophy/revolutionary philosophy. And finally, in the framework of revolutionary philosophy we have a dichotomy that has no clear outlines, as characterized by the ratio to the institutionalization and commensurate with tradition. The intricate scheme of relations of these dichotomies is resolved suddenly in favor of edifying philosophers, intentionally peripheral in relation to traditions, making the whole hierarchy of dichotomies simply unnecessary. Edifying philosophy rejects the idea of penetration into the essence of reality, offering different views of the role of philosophy. Instead of a systematic search of the eternal truths, it offers a «Conversation of Mankind». Such approach excludes the main feature of philosophy, the argument. As a consequence, edifying philosophers are «partners in conversation», and their goal is not to search for objective truth, but the continuation of the conversation itself, and maintaining such a conversation is quite sufficient for the purpose of philosophy. In edifying philosophy, hermeneutics is used instead of reasoning in order to understand the partner in conversation. Edifying philosophy is based on the interpretation of acts that avoid institutionalization, having a great deal of arbitrariness in comparison even with the vaguest arguments. Interpretation pretends to be the only conceptual tool in the cognition of the world. As an example, the philosophers who prefer hermeneutics to arguments, according to Rorty, are exemplified by Gadamer and Sartre. There is a fundamental contradiction in the philosophy of Richard Rorty, who throughout his career continuously «involved» the most diverse philosophers in the «conversation of mankind», which has more or less contingent character. At the same time, Rorty denies some of these philosophers who should participate in the «conversation» of the need to argue their case, assuming that the admonitory strategy of these philosophers is the most successful. And the other part of the participants of the same «conversation» - systematic philosophy - is denied in the useful arguments, considering it as simply unnecessary. It is hard to imagine such a fruitful conversation between two groups of philosophers, each of which clings to its own standards of philosophizing. Reconciliation, which offers Rorty, based on his pragmatic vision of the entire philosophical enterprise, is largely a utopian project, which vulnerability is increasing with the growing schism of «two cultures».