I don't get to have lunch with other philosophers that often.
By "philosophers" I mean those up on the gossip of Philosophy.
Take Rorty for example, my prof at Princeton. Was he unhappy at Princeton because the Anglos always want to be Analytic? My impression of Haack's critique of Rorty is that it has to do with the latter's lack of appreciation for Peirce.
My take on that front is Rorty took the later Wittgenstein seriously and didn't see a future for Logic in the sense of Fundamentals ala Bertrand Russell.
So a fourth volume was to take up geometric beginnings, and Whitehead was to write that one? Whitehead is classified as an American philosopher because of his focus on Process? I hadn't heard that.
Peirce's inability to score a lasting position at Harvard wasn't Rorty's fault at least.
Propositional Calculus kept the seat warm for electronic modeling languages to come, in some respects. Boolean Algebra came into its own during the silicon circuitry revolution. If the pragmatic task at hand is to model the workflows of a busy airport, then isn't Python way more competent than anything from the age portrayed in Logicomix?
To what extent is the formal logic of the 20th Century an art form, on which little of practical value now hinges? Computer languages, and computer science, have relieved the logicians of their "heavy" burden.
Some detractors say Rorty's skills as a logician were too limiting, which is why his contributions to philosophy were at best mediocre (mean).
Others say his focus, on Continental authors, and on ethics and aesthetics, areas irreducible to logic, were consistent with his view of philosophy as a branch of literature, less a STEM subject, not a science.
