The paper focuses on the disproportion the author sees in Rorty’s work. While the author appreciates highly Rorty’s antirepresentationalism, he criticizes Rorty’s social and political philosophy, which, an his opinion, is rooted in early modern philosophy. The latter, he argues, emphasizes the dichotomy between subject and object – an approach characteristic for that period. In support of his claiming a big difference between full-fledge pragmatism and purely pragmatic eclecticism, the author compares Rorty’s and Dewey’s works to show that those of (...) Dewey are considerably promising as for as the resolution of the problems of our society and politics. (shrink)

According to the author Rorty´s romanticism is limited by postanalytical presuppositions. Consequently, Rorty should be considered a "modern enlightened man". Due to his disbelief in the concept od "experience", in searching for something beyond "vocabularies", Rorty ignores an important fact: Humans are interconnected with their world also by other relationships, not only by those, which can be formulated in banal, everyday "rational" language. In order to show more clearly the blind spot of the postanalyticians he tries to compare Rorty´s approach (...) with that of Michel Foucault, who attempted at reintroducing the forgotten conception of truth as a personal "proof" or "battle". Thus he wanted to confirm the superiority of ac_ting over thinking, of experiment over clearly defined and intelligible "vocabulary". According to the author this approach is much closer to romanticism than that of Rorty. (shrink)