The inherent problem I have with Rorty in this article is the fact that the concept of a socially defined truth clashes with the changing nature of society and the potential for people to agree on something being the truth when it is false. First and foremost, what you have to understand is that what is defined as socially acceptable under the concept of generally accepted truth tends to change based on the society present at the time.
For instance, when examining ancient Greek society, it was considered generally acceptable for an older male at the time to have a social contract with a far younger male (i.e., sex for money and influence). In this instance, the fact that it was considered appropriate social behavior as compared to the present (i.e., pedophilia) shows that what is considered as “truthful” tends to change.
This shift was noted during the 1920s till early 1990s wherein western society generally frowned upon the concept of men sleeping with other men. It was only recently that the concept became a more mainstream and socially acceptable type of behavior. As such, one must ask what version is the truth. Is the ancient Greek truth of grown men lying with young boys correct, is it the social notion from the 1900s that men sleeping with men is unacceptable, or is it the present-day iteration wherein being gay is entering mainstream acceptability?
In essence, Rorty’s thesis on the concept of truth is far more subjective and up for interpretation rather than something objective and thus irrefutable. It should also be noted that there have been numerous instances throughout history that something that was defined as “truth” was proven to be false through science. For instance, it was the generally accepted “truth” during Ancient Greek society that weather patterns and natural occurrences were done through the actions of Gods and Goddesses.
This was accepted as truth by most of Greek society at the time and, as such, this manifested itself through various rituals and sacrifices meant to appease the Gods. However, based on the development of science over the years, we now know that weather and natural occurrences are a direct result of the normal, natural environment at work that is inherently influenced by the climate, position of the Earth relative to the Sun as well as tectonic activity in the Earth’s crust.
Taking this into consideration, it can thus be stated that the generally accepted societal “truth” that was a cornerstone of the ancient Greek belief system was, in fact, a false assumption. However, how can something be completely false if it is generally accepted as truth by a society? This aspect shows that for Rorty, the premise behind what is considered as “truth” is entirely independent of what can be stated as absolute fact.
It is based on this that I completely disagree with the thesis put forth by Rorty given its subjective correlation of truth. I believe that the concept of truth should be something that is based on an objective opinion that has been properly vetted by scientific inquiry. While it may be true that there are many aspects that were previously considered as truth due to a lack of scientific and the belief of a society, the fact remains that promoting the establishment of such a way of thinking is an adverse progression for social development.