Incorrigibility As The Mark Of The Mental By Richard Rorty Analysis

How can we pinpoint mentality? In “Incorrigibility as the Mark of the Mental” Richard Rorty believes he has figured it out. Rorty, as his title would suggest, believes incorrigibility (when something can not be proven false) is the mark of the mental. Whether this is true or not, the more radical claim that stems from his argument is that mentality is merely a social construct that could, in theory, one day disappear all together. I don 't agree that either of these claims are necessarily true and I will offer examples later in this paper to push back on these claims. I also can 't help but feel generally upset by this second claim, for example if mentality is a social construct that may one day no longer exists, then why should we care about …show more content…
It seems incorrect that “I am having a sensation of red” has intent or purpose. So then what else is there? Rorty identifies introspectibility, non spatiality, and privacy. The first two he believes still have too much connection to the physical, but privacy as defined by A.J. Ayer consist of incommunicability, special access, unshareability, and incorrigibility (415). Rorty settles on incorrigibility and makes it clear that mental events are unlike any other in that claims about them can not be overridden. This is partly because there is no formal process for correcting individuals on reports of thoughts and sensations. In order for Rorty to continue he must establish his view on incorrigibility.The basic proof looks something like: S believes p at t. In a very “I think therefore I am” sense, it would be impossible for one to say “I am thinking p” and not actually be thinking p. The most trustworthy way to see into the privacy of someone 's mind is to trust their first person reports. Again, since there is no formal way to correct someone on their reports of their mental events, they are incorrigible. He is not saying however they cannot be doubted, just not