Published in 1981 Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (PMN) has become something of a classic in contemporary Anglo-American philosophy. As someone who had, until that point, largely worked within the analytic tradition Rorty's criticism of many of the tenants of Anglo-American philosophy was seen by some commentators as near heretical.



PMN is a wide-ranging and meticulously referenced commentary on mid-twentieth century analytic philosophy. Though Rorty discusses a range of inter-related issues with great alacrity, his criticism is primarily focused on epistemology. In particular, Rorty is critical of what is often referred to as representational - the contention that we do not have direct access to reality, but, only to indirect representations of that reality in our minds. According to Rorty this view has been detrimental by causing philosophers to seek out criteria for assessing and improving these representations. He contends that this search for transcendental objective knowledge is misguided. Instead Rorty argues for a deflationary, or what he calls an edifying or conversational approach wherein truth/knowledge is limited to specific social groups or language games - as he pithily remarks truth is what your friends will let you get away with. As a result of PMN, Rorty has been criticized by many within the Anglo-American tradition as a relativist. While it is clear that, at least in a broad ontological sense, he is a relativist much of this criticism seems overstated. While I disagree with some of his key presuppositions (e.g. physicalism), his position given this worldview seems quite consistent. Indeed, theistic commentators have often remarked that in a physicalist/atheistic worldview notions of objective truth or knowledge are illusory.



Although PMN is a worthwhile read, potential readers are advised that it is nuanced and sophisticated discussion - part of an internecine debate amongst academic philosophers. If one is not well versed in the Modern Western tradition (Descartes, Locke, Kant, ETC.), let alone more recent commentators such as Wittgenstein, Quine, Sellers, Putnam, the discussion will likely be incomprehensible. Overall, a good book by a broad and interesting thinker. Recommended for students of modern analytic philosophy