Nicely said. In the context of the many lectures of his to which I’ve listened, this is the most politically revealing and I’m genuinely surprised to find him in line (in many ways) with thinkers like Steven Pinker and other liberal humanists who highly value and embrace a correspondence theory of truth, though he’s more comically sardonic, reticent, and dismissive in tone they ever are. As to your wish re the interviewer: How do you press someone on their inconsistencies if they’re as comfortable dismissing inconsistencies (and as friendly to “paradox”) as Rorty is? I’m not sure his notion of coherence requires LOGICAL consistency. Given his version of pragmatism, he can say one thing that he sees as pragmatically suitable in one context and the opposite in another context and call that coherence. His pragmatism affords him this luxury. In this context he’s focussed on what constitutes a good philosophical question. He could perhaps freely say different things in another context. Maybe I’m taking his own logic too far or I’m off target somewhat, but if you are appealing to logical consistency, I’m not sure Rorty can’t find ways out of that problem on the back of his particular notion of contextualism. That said, I fully agree with your suggestion that in this video he comes off as a rather pedestrian reformist liberal capitalist… a helpful post for sure.

Rorty is skeptical about truth only in metaphysical sense. Dogmatic about what?

@@themennoniteatheist1255 Logical consistency? About what logic you are talking?

@@daimon00000 can you be more explicit about what you’re after? Is there a point you’re trying to make? If it’s a sincere question, I’d need clarification to know how to pursue a response.

You could do a lot worse