When I've heard famous philosophers speak or read their writing, I have usually been impressed by their reasoning and insight even if I didn't agree with them. Richard Rorty is an exception. I recently listened to a podcast where he was discussing neo-pragmatism and I was appalled at how lame his argumentation was. He would, for example, say that we should stop being hung up by grand notions of truth or justice and just rely on the outcomes of ideal conversations between people.
Every time he was challenged, he would slip aside and deny that he was making any positive claims. For example, "What is it that makes an ideal conversation if not that the conditions of the conversation are likely to lead to truth?" or "What is the goal of these conversations if it's not justice?" He equivocates, saying he doesn't deny the existence of truth or justice, only that they can be defined or that we should be concerned about them.
Is this a common criticism of Rorty? I can't imagine how he seems to have been take so seriously in the philosophical community.
