Summary of Rortys Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

The chief target of Rortys Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature is to undermine mind as a
philosophical problem by proving that mind-body problem, foundations of knowledge and
the problem of what makes human, human are not really problems at all. The idea of mind
that developed in the epistemological tradition served as a solid base for serving as "mirrors"
to reflect reality with various degrees of accuracy. In other words, the theory of
representations that took for granted the operations of the mind served as foundational for
philosophy as a discipline to develop. The concept of mind arose as a result of the search for
a set of presuppositions a priori (a framework) that would eternalize what was normal of the
day, so that certainty would be achieved. However, what unexpectedly took place was the
dominance of unsolvable philosophical problems. This resulted in philosophers spending
their energies in polishing the mirror so that reality would be accurately represented. This
tradition of seeking for ahistorical and eternal grounding started with Descartes claim that
mind is a separate entity, continued with Lockes association of knowledge and mental
processes and culminated to its peak with Kant building the architectonic of pure reason.
Thus, the traditional picture of philosophy appeared as a discipline which dealt with perennial
problems which are in some sense independent of the historical circumstances of the people
who think about them.
A shift waved over when Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and John Dewey opened
up new opportunities for philosophy by abandoning the theory of representations and mind as
an inner space. In other words, the works of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Martin Heidegger, and
John Dewey set aside the tradition by not arguing against it but by breaking free from the
foundational philosophy by considering it as self-deceptive. Their works were therapeutic
rather than constructive and edifying than systematic which ultimately enabled the readers to
question the motives of the traditional philosophers rather than supply them with a new
philosophy. Rorty adores Dewey, Wittgenstein and Heidegger for considering the a priori
constraint as a social phenomenon, for claiming that language is a tool and not mirror and for
arguing for the openness to the world we are thrown into, respectively. It were they who first
refuted the tradition by claiming that the set of presuppositions for the knowledge to be
possible at all, the same foundational faculties of the mind has to be used. Rorty through his
book follows their footpath by being historical in his approach and by not providing new
solutions to old set of problems (but by rejecting these problems). In other words, he aims to

break free from the outworn philosophical vocabularies that developed within modern
western philosophy and which exist in the form of conceptual analysis and phenomenological
analysis in the contemporary world. Rorty also defends his attempt against the charges of
relativism and irrationalism by claiming that they would not have any weight in the light of
the criticism of the mirror and the historical reality that has to be coped up with.
Summary of Lyotards The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
The focus of Lyotard throughout his work The Postmodern Condition: A Report on
Knowledge is the condition of knowledge in the most highly developed societies. Lyotard
questions the definition of knowledge in post-industrial societies equipped with new media,
information technologies and universal access to information. He enquires about the source
of such knowledge and tries to evaluate the nature of is flow. He examines developments in
the nature and circulation of knowledge and insists that knowledge has led to the discrediting
of the metanarratives of universal progress. Lyotard also believes that the method of
legitimation traditionally used by science becomes obsolete in a postmodern society.
In The Postmodern Condition, Lyotard turns away from the question of desire towards the
question of rights and justice. He concentrates on the modern forms of knowledge, which he
calls metanarratives. Metanarratives are stories about the world which claim to be the
definitive and universal story. They claim to be definitive because they have absolute truth on
their side. Their link to a special scientific method enables them to have access to the world
as it really is. Examples of these metanarratives could include socialism, liberalism and
feminism. Lyotard rejects these metanarratives and claims that there is always a terrible cost
for producing such apparently coherent stories about the whole of humanity. In the process of
producing such knowledge many voices have to be silenced by asserting that they are
irrelevant, mad, perverted, unscientific and politically incorrect. This is because they do not
fit in with the metanarratives view of what is human, normal and desirable. Metanarratives
are always potentially terrorising and totalitarian and they always threaten to depict someone
as subhuman or abnormal.
For Lyotard, plurality and fragmentation gives a cause for celebration of being human. It
provides for the possibility that many of those voices previously eliminated and silenced be
heard. The postmodern condition means that we can never again take metanarratives
seriously. Lyotard is optimistic about the evolution and spread of postmodern attitude.