Philosopher’s Topos, or Once again about philosophical self-determination (based on the book Richard Rorty: A fringe analytic philosopher' by Oxana Tselishcheva)

The article deals with the issue of philosopher’s identity and their search for the niche of their own. The basis for this analysis was found in the book Richard Rorty: A ‘fringe analytic philosopher’ by Oxana Tselishcheva and in Rorty’s own material. The article analyses Tselishcheva’s search for Rorty’s place within philosophical discourse. The article outlines the vast palette of ideas and self-ascribed characteristics Rorty chose when speaking about and comparing himself to other philosophers that are present within the book. As a result of this analysi Tselishcheva points out several fundamental dichotomies of philosophical ideas as presented by Rorty: analytical and continental philosophy; systemic and hortatory ones; normal and revolutionary ones; centripetal and centrifugal ones; logic and science based and metaphor and literature based ones. Tselishcheva applies these classifications to Rorty himself and concludes that he proves to be difficult to pin down. She states that Rorty should be considered more of a continental philosopher as well as more of a hortatory centrifugal literature based revolutionary. This article in turn asks what drives Rorty to shift between all these philosophical positions, without fully committing to any of them? The article agrees with Tselishcheva that this driver was Rorty’s understanding of philosophy as a Big Conversation. Rorty abandoned the notion that philosophy must seek ultimate objective answers and strived to make philosophers mediators moderating the Big Conversation as it was happening instead. This is what defined his own identity. Philosophy happens accidentally. It is defined by the principle of contingency. In the absence of objective truth or any hidden final realities, a philosopher can engage in a Conversation out of solidarity, not truth seeking. The article concludes stating that it is possible for a philosopher to identify not as a student of any specific school of thought but as a carrier of their unique opinion and point of view. Thus, philosopher’s topos is emergent in nature. The author declares no conflicts of interests.