Rorty vs. Popper, or “Conversation” vs. “Argumentation”
In this paper, Rorty’s and Popper’s philosophies are compared from the perspective of their social, cultural, and political implications. The author focuses on two nuclear concepts: conversation (Rorty) and argumentation (Popper). He argues that the historical and philosophical context of these philosophies is basically the same: the problematics of the consequences of holism, as concerns the theory of meaning, for the status of philosophy itself – a problematic as the one which Quine, Kuhn, and Popper, have established since the 1960s. However, when the two concepts (conversation, argumentation) are more closely compared, they seem to lead to contrasting conceptions of society, of culture, and of politics, which are carefully discussed.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows sharing the work with recognition of authorship and initial publication in Antropologia Portuguesa journal.