Richard Rorty’s philosophical papers vol.1 - the introduction - an opening foray
the idea of a god’s eye view is an argument for transcendence
the idea that there is a position outside of reality – outside of the unity – that is reality – from which we can assess the goings on inside –
so it’s not just that we might be able to step outside of the mind – but go further as it were – and step out of reality
so such a view is not just an argument against idealism – it’s an argument against realism (whatever that might be) and it’s an argument against reality –
it posits and presumes a higher reality
to my mind a particularly absurd notion
the only thing you can say for it is that it is a posit of the imagination
the idea of a ‘possible standpoint’ – which held as a product of the imagination – is no more than a fantasy
much of life is fantasy
what is front and centre is that we don’t know
we function and we operate – and we reflect on this
all our reflections are stratagems for dealing with the unknown
realism is strictly speaking a non-reflective position
representationalism is an attempt to explain the relation of subject and object – or more precisely the relation of the conscious and the non-conscious
this unity I suggest is properly regarded as unknown
and ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ – to be regarded as operational dimensions of this unity
this unity is where we begin – it is the unknown
what I am putting here is that the notion of the unity of dimensions – of the internal and the external – is the best we can achieve with regard to objectivity
so ‘objectivity’ is the essential unity – and this is unknown
there is no position beyond this – no god’s eye view
or to continue the metaphor – the ‘god’s eye view’ that we have – the unity of dimensions – of the conscious and the non-conscious – is blind
representationalism:
representationalism requires a point of view outside that of the supposed relation of representation
there is no such point of view
therefore language does not represent reality –
language just is the relation of the conscious and the non-conscious – expressed
thus language is a mode of action
we have the relation between consciousness and the non-conscious - its expression is language
language is neither consciousness per se or non-consciousness per se
it is the relation expressed
so on this view the distinction between word and object –
is a pre-language distinction
it could only make sense before you have language
the reality of language in action – you might say –
is that there is no word and object
there is the action of language
the fact of it – heaven forbid I use this expression
and the fact of it is that it functions
its logic is the logic of function
now to meaning –
this is the post-language parlour game
so language is the action of the unity that is consciousness in a non-conscious context
it is the expression of this unity
and expression is just the basic function of this unity – of the human being
language expresses the unity and is the platform of its function and operation
given this – or once it is seen in this light – any of the distinctions we have used to get to this point – i.e. – conscious / non-conscious – internal / external – word / object etc.
are operating distinctions that come from the fact of language
and yes some of these distinctions are turned back on language – with the idea of explaining it
these distinctions come from language – they cannot be used to explain it – they are an outcome of it
they are internal to it –
there is no outside of language
that is to say subjectivity and objectivity are operating categories of the unity expressed
and clearly they are natural and have great utility in dealing with the unknown
reality is what we don’t know – realism is dealing with this fact
© greg. t. charlton. 2008.
