This page is no longer being updated and remains online for informational and historical purposes only. The information is accurate as of the last page update.
For questions about page contents, contact the Communications Division.
The McKelvy House Scholars invite the campus to join a dinner discussion Sunday evening on the anti-foundationalist critique of philosophy.
Dinner will begin 6 p.m. at McKelvy House, 200 High Street; RSVP by Saturday to mastj. Led by McKelvy Scholar Jared Mast ’04(Easton, Pa.), a double major in art and philosophy, the discussion will start 6:30 p.m. and requires no reservations.
“For this week’s discussion, I would like to take a look at the anti-foundationalist critique of philosophy,” he says, “particularly that of Richard Rorty. From the preface to Rorty’s Truth and Progress:
“The underlying theme of the collection is Rorty’s view that we should think of inquiry, in science or any other area of culture, as solving problems rather than as aiming at truth. Only the discredited correspondence theory of truth makes it plausible to think of truth as the name of a goal. Once that notion is given up, we can give up the idea of inquiry converging to a predestined point and consider the horizons of inquiry as constantly expanding as we encounter new problems.”
Rorty considers philosophy to be a problem-solving endeavor rather than a truth-seeking one, Mast explains.
“Rorty arrives at this position after giving up on the appearance-reality distinction and the resultant correspondence theory of truth (echoing Dewey, Davidson, et al.),” he says. “This position has interesting implications for our discussion series as Rorty’s anti-foundationalism seems to undermine any kind of moral claim. Rorty will argue that we can talk only of actions being ‘justified’ and ‘not justified’ as opposed to ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Rorty takes an interesting quote from Wittgenstein to begin his Philosophy as a Mirror of Nature:
“Philosophy has made no progress? If somebody scratches where it itches, does that count as progress? If not, does that mean it wasn’t an authentic scratch? Not an authentic itch? Couldn’t this response to the stimulus go on for quite a long time until a remedy for itching is found?”
“What then are we doing when we engage is moral debate?” asks Mast. “Is this type of discussion worthwhile in light of Rorty’s anti-foundationalism — how, for instance, could we say that discussion is “good”?
He recommends The Banalization of Nihilism and passages in the introduction to Truth and Progress for background to prepare for the discussion.
Since 1962, the McKelvy House Scholars program has brought together Lafayette students with a wide range of majors and interests to reside in a historic off-campus house and share in intellectual and social activities. Weekly Sunday dinner discussions that engage the students in debate and exchange of ideas are the hallmark of the program. Most members also contribute to the annual McKelvy Papers, written on a topic of each person’s choice. McKelvy Scholars participate in activities together such as field trips to plays, concerts, and exhibits, and sponsor events for the campus as well.
Some past McKelvy discussions in 2003-04:
April 18 – Dark humor
April 11 — Cults
April 4 — Link between ethical behavior and intelligence
March 28 — Five Images of Man
March 7 — Idealized body forms
Feb. 22 — Countercultures
Feb. 15 — Eternity
Feb. 8 — Bisexuality
Dec. 7 — Anger toward computers and technology
Nov. 9 — “Unnecessary” crimes
Nov. 2 — Genetic alteration
Oct. 26 — Social construction of gender
Oct. 19 — Greed as an economic force
Sept. 28 — Value