Hilary Putnam developed a distinctive way of seeing and answering every self’s existential question: What, if anything, gives life meaning? Engaging with issues of meaning over the course of his intellectual and life journey led Putnam to a deeper appreciation of the distinctive character of the practices of philosophy and religious faith as well as the long history of their dynamic interaction. By sharing an account of his own personal journey, most explicitly in Jewish Philosophy as a Guide to Life,1 (...) Putnam generously offered us an aid to reflection on a topic of universal personal concern.The first part of this article acknowledges the plurality of pragmatist views on religious faith. The second part... (shrink)

To those working for human rights because of belief in their substantive value, Richard Rorty’s non-cognitivist advocacy of the Western culture of human rights is an example of a confused vision that is tragically self-defeating. Rorty undermines the grounds for a commitment that can transcend feelings and endure threats. In addition, the natural consequence of developing the reflective intelligence of the young would lead in time to seeing their “teachers” of human rights as cultural colonizers attempting to rob them of (...) their identity. The argument here is that there is a more compelling vision of nature and human nature available that is (1) not a version of materialism, (2) eliminates having to confront materialism’s inherent difficulty with norms, and (3) can make intelligible and support a more self-aware, inspiring human rights culture. The argument draws upon, qualifies, and extends reinforcing insights to be found in the works of McDowell and Wittgenstein. (shrink)

Standard, or ordinary, modern philosophy, with its inadequately examined assumption of what amounts to a Cartesian-inspired epistemological stance accompanied today with materialist reductionist patterns of seeing and thinking, presents significant obstacles to recognizing the cognitive force of the diverse experiences that arise within and are made possible by our need and interest-based practices whose roots lie in our bio-social nature.1 This denial of epistemic value to experience has negative consequences in general but particularly for understanding the ethical dimension of our (...) lives, not the least being learning what is required to foster our ethical maturation in a pluralistic world. (shrink)

Are there universal and objective rights? Is the discourse of “rights” a mask for Western interests? The way in which individuals assess these arguments affects the hope that globalization will have a moral dimension. One aim of this paper is to reinforce such a hope by drawing on a broad tradition that goes back to Plato and that is carried forward more recently by Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein. Two sources for relativism, postmodernism and scientism, are examined and found to depend on (...) a narrow understanding of reason’s ability to grasp different kinds of truths. This essay also examines cosmopolitan views about the universality of rights that treat “universality” too abstractly. The kind of universality or objectivity preferred here recognizes that differences are as significant as similarities. (shrink)