How to Live with 'Those We Cannot Understand' — What Rorty's Philosophy Asks

Explanation

On social media, arguments over 'who is right' break out almost every day. In a society with scattered values and no 'shared premises,' how should we face people whose opinions differ from our own? This is the question that the American philosopher Richard Rorty grappled with throughout his life. A 2026 book by Chu Hicheol, 'Living Together in a Fragmented World,' is drawing attention.

Rorty's position is known as 'anti-foundationalism.' Rather than searching for an unshakable foundation (truth) that is 'absolutely correct,' he sought hope in the very act of continuing 'conversation (dialogue)' between people. He believed that what matters is not 'refuting an opponent into silence,' but 'not turning others we cannot understand into enemies.'

His keyword is 'solidarity.' Even people in different positions can live together if they have 'the ability to imagine another's pain as if it were their own' — the idea that people can connect through imagination even without a shared correct answer.

'What is rightness?' and 'How can we coexist with others?' are themes that frequently appear in modern Japanese and essay-writing sections of university entrance exams. As practice for thinking through questions without answers in one's own words, Rorty's thought makes an excellent starting point.