Abstract

Bernstein's attempt to identify a convergence in the ethical and political implications of the writings of Gadamer and Rorty is found to be inadequate on two counts. First, by accepting the extreme antifoundationalism in Rorty, Bernstein tends to undermine the humanistic ideals he wishes to defend. And, second, the important differences in the conception of history in Gadamer and Rorty are concealed. It is argued that Gadamer's view of 'effective-history' offers a basis for enduring values which would not be possible given Rorty's conception of history.