This was a new perspective on Rorty for me. I want to re-read and digest it further. I read his "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature" carefully, and also a few papers. He is charming and has great insights. But I couldn't get on board with philosophy as conversation. That might be a good process or a good way to swing the pendulum, but it seems ultimately empty for its own sake and for the sake of philosophy. In that light, "conversation" *sounds* like post-modernism. After a certain amount of conversation, shouldn't we come to some (limited) conclusions? Or why are we conversing to begin with?