Dewey as Rorty’s Philosophic and Democratic Anchor

Dewey, kućni prijatelj i politički istomišljenik njegova oca, inspirirao je Rortyja od malih nogu, ostajući uzor kojemu bi se na svakom spoznajnom raskrižju uvijek vraćao. Njegov pragmatizam poslužio mu je u odbacivanju filozofskih, društvenih i kulturnih dogmi, a njegov demokratizam poticao na oduševljenje američkim patriotizmom, koji je obojici važio za esencijalnu komponentu građanstva, što su im kritičari predbacivali kao crtu naiviteta. No i ta se »naivistička« Deweyjeva načela Rortyjevog zagovaranja slobode pravednije jednakosti, temelje na baštini njegove prosvjetiteljski katarzične socijalne etike, kojom se je Rorty, s velikim povjerenjem u društveno dobro, izvlačio iz kreativnog nihilizma svog ironičnog »antiizma«.Dewey inspired Rorty in the first place as his father’s friend and political mate. Whenever the younger man was at some kind of a cognitive crossroads Dewey would act as his philosophical anchor. Dewey’s pragmatism and democratism helped him in casting off philosophical, social and cultural dogmas, at the same time encouraging him to turn towards the enthusiasm of America’s patriotism that was for both of them an essential component of citizenry. Their critics described this component and the principles of Dewey’s and Rorty’s social ethics as some kind of naïveté. Rorty followed the so-called naïveté of Dewey pleading for liberty as some kind of fundamental fairer equality. Rorty applied Dewey’s heritage of enlightened cathartic social ethics using it with great belief in public good, and as a means of saving himself from the creative nihilism of his own ironic “antiism”

Simplicity in Visual Representation: A Semiotic Approach

Simplicity, as an ideal in the design of visual representations, has not received systematic attention. High-level guidelines are too general, and low-level guidelines too ad hoc, too numerous, and too often incompatible, to serve in a particular design situation. This paper reviews notions of visual simplicity in the literature within the analytical framework provided by Charles Morris' communication model, specifically, his trichotomy of communication levels—the syntactic, the semantic, and the pragmatic. Simplicity is ultimate ly shown to entail the adjudication of incompatibilities both within, and between, levels.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68281/2/10.1177_105065198700100103.pd

Dewey as Rorty’s Philosophic and Democratic Anchor

Dewey, kućni prijatelj i politički istomišljenik njegova oca, inspirirao je Rortyja od malih nogu, ostajući uzor kojemu bi se na svakom spoznajnom raskrižju uvijek vraćao. Njegov pragmatizam poslužio mu je u odbacivanju filozofskih, društvenih i kulturnih dogmi, a njegov demokratizam poticao na oduševljenje američkim patriotizmom, koji je obojici važio za esencijalnu komponentu građanstva, što su im kritičari predbacivali kao crtu naiviteta. No i ta se »naivistička« Deweyjeva načela Rortyjevog zagovaranja slobode pravednije jednakosti, temelje na baštini njegove prosvjetiteljski katarzične socijalne etike, kojom se je Rorty, s velikim povjerenjem u društveno dobro, izvlačio iz kreativnog nihilizma svog ironičnog »antiizma«.Dewey inspired Rorty in the first place as his father’s friend and political mate. Whenever the younger man was at some kind of a cognitive crossroads Dewey would act as his philosophical anchor. Dewey’s pragmatism and democratism helped him in casting off philosophical, social and cultural dogmas, at the same time encouraging him to turn towards the enthusiasm of America’s patriotism that was for both of them an essential component of citizenry. Their critics described this component and the principles of Dewey’s and Rorty’s social ethics as some kind of naïveté. Rorty followed the so-called naïveté of Dewey pleading for liberty as some kind of fundamental fairer equality. Rorty applied Dewey’s heritage of enlightened cathartic social ethics using it with great belief in public good, and as a means of saving himself from the creative nihilism of his own ironic “antiism”