I find it interesting that Thomas Kuhn didn’t want to associate himself with philosophers like Richard Rorty who loved his work. Similarly I find it amusing that Richard Rorty writes somewhat more critically than I’d expect of continental compatriots like Foucault and Derrida.

Kuhn points out that science isn’t as scientific as it likes to think. Rorty happily explains why – all is narrative! Truth is just what we agree on as most useful for solving our problems! It takes time to adopt new narratives, time for others to see their usefulness, etc.

Foucault and Derrida point out that all narratives are built not so much by authors but by circumstances and accumulations and language itself. Similar to Levi-Strauss’s work with how myths translate across cultures, built from the ashes and judgements of other myths. Rorty says great! But have we as humans any use for this insight? He is always looking for the use of things, his only moral compass. Foucault was a bit more free than Rorty, seeing a place for thinkers who simply fashion new tools for use, but aren’t too concerned with said use, leaving it for others to pick up the tools and figure out how to use them.

In a way, Foucault was a mad inventer, Rorty is a bit more of a procedural theoreticist. The rest of us are the lab technicians who do the actual work!

What work should we do? Trying to construct new and better narratives by which to better live life! And being willing to toss out what doesn’t work.