Abstract

In a review of the recent Heidegger controversy, Richard Rorty maintains that "as a human being Heidegger was a rather nasty piece of work--a coward and a liar, pretty much from first to last" but, nevertheless, that "Heidegger was as original a philosopher as we have had in this century." According to Rorty, "being an original philosopher is like being an original mathematician or an original microbiologist or a consummate chess master: it is the result of some neural kink that occurs independently of other kinks." Lorraine Code, who takes issue with Rorty's dismissal of epistemology by writing a book expounding it, would certainly disagree with this as well. Code holds that in any knowledge claim a "person's intellectual integrity counts as a significant part of the evidence in much the same way as in moral matters a person's moral integrity is a determining factor in decisions as to whether he or she should be trusted". So she is hardly likely to accept Rorty's contradictory assessment of Heidegger, and perhaps not even his view of originality in microbiology and mathematics, far less personal forms of knowledge. The great virtue of her book is to show that diverse kinds of epistemic responsibility, involved in various forms of knowledge, are not to be divorced from considerations of character. She claims that her epistemic approach, "by basing judgement on facts about a knowledge claimant's character, would allow justification to have sources that neither strict foundationalists nor coherentists can, ex hypothesi, acknowledge".