Rorty acts as a deconstructive bomb

 While Plutarch (c. 46–120 AD) and Christian Wolff (1679–1754) belong to vastly different eras—Ancient Greece and the Enlightenment—they share similarities in their didactic goals, their encyclopedic approach to knowledge, and their focus on practical morality.

1. Practical Ethics and Perfectionism

Both thinkers were primarily concerned with the moral improvement of their readers: 

• Moral Guidance: Plutarch’s Lives and Moralia were designed as character studies to provide models of virtue and vice for the reader to judge. Similarly, Wolff’s Perfectionism aimed at providing a practical guide for moral improvement through rational cognition.
• The Critical Reader: Plutarch encourages "critical reading," inviting readers to draw their own moral conclusions from historical anecdotes. Wolff likewise believes that grasping the rational reasons underlying reality—the "Principle of Sufficient Reason"—can alter human behavior and make individuals more rational. 

2. Encyclopedic and Systematizing Scope

They were both "polymaths" of their respective times, attempting to categorize all available human knowledge:

• Breadth of Knowledge: Plutarch wrote extensively on politics, ethics, religion, and philosophy, creating a "mine of information" for future generations.
• Rigid Systematization: Wolff is famous for his "mathematical method" in philosophy, where he systematized knowledge into distinct branches: ontology, physics, and practical philosophy (ethics, politics, economics). 

3. Accessible Philosophy

Both sought to move philosophy out of the exclusive domain of scholars and into the public sphere: 

• Public Intellectuals: Plutarch’s works were intended for a wide audience of "good and patriotic citizens" rather than just specialists.
• Enlightenment Pioneer: Wolff was one of the first to publish philosophical texts in German (rather than Latin), making his ideas accessible to "laymen, women, and kings". 

4. Philosophy and Reason

• Universal Reason: Wolff saw his own theory of reason mirrored in ancient thinkers like Confucius, believing that ancient morality was often built on reason alone. Plutarch similarly viewed philosophy as a "form of mental inquiry" (philomatheia) that served as an internal source of moral worth, independent of external religious rituals. 

Would you like to explore how Plutarch's "Parallel Lives" compares to the modern 2026 use of "Moral Exemplars" in AI ethics and education?

- GoogleAI 

In 2026, political theorists view John Rawls (1921–2002) as the modern successor to the "practical systematizing" tradition of Wolff and the "moral modeling" of Plutarch, though he replaces their metaphysical and historical foundations with procedural justice.

Rawls shares three major "architectural" similarities with them:

1. The Pursuit of "Perfection" vs. "Justice"

• Wolff's Connection: Wolff was a perfectionist; he believed the goal of the state and the individual was to achieve "perfection" through reason.
• Rawls’s Shift: Rawls explicitly rejects "Perfectionism" (the idea that society should promote a specific "highest good" like Plutarch’s Greek virtue or Wolff’s rational perfection). However, he shares their didactic goal: he provides a system (Justice as Fairness) to help citizens achieve a "well-ordered society." He moves the "perfection" from the individual's character to the social structure.

2. The "Systematizing" Impulse

• Wolff’s Connection: Rawls is often called the "Wolff of the 20th Century" because of his obsession with systematic rigor. Just as Wolff used a "mathematical method" to categorize all knowledge, Rawls used a "lexical ordering" of principles to ensure his system of justice was logically watertight.
• The Framework: Like Wolff, Rawls believes that if you get the first principles right (the "Original Position" and the "Veil of Ignorance"), the rest of the social contract follows with mathematical necessity.

3. The Use of "Moral Exemplars" and Models

• Plutarch’s Connection: Plutarch used Parallel Lives to give readers a "model" of how a virtuous leader should act.
• Rawls’s "Original Position": Rawls creates a mental model (a "thought experiment") that serves a similar purpose. The "person behind the Veil of Ignorance" is the modern, abstract version of Plutarch’s "Noble Greek." We are meant to look at this model to determine our own moral and political duties.

4. Accessibility and Public Reason

• Wolff’s Connection: Just as Wolff insisted on writing in German to reach the "common man," Rawls developed the concept of "Public Reason." He argued that in a pluralistic society, we must explain our political views using language that everyone can reasonably accept, regardless of their private religious or philosophical beliefs (what he called "Comprehensive Doctrines").

Summary of Resonance (2026 Perspective)

Feature	Plutarch	Christian Wolff	John Rawls
Foundation	Character: History and biography.	Reason: Mathematical ontology.	Fairness: The social contract.
Method	Comparing Models (Lives).	Rigid Systematization.	Reflective Equilibrium.
Objective	Producing Virtuous Citizens.	Producing a Perfect Society.	Producing a Stable, Just State.

The 2026 Verdict: Rawls is "Wolffian" in his logic and "Plutarchan" in his moral seriousness, but he is uniquely modern in his belief that the "ideal" is not found in an ancient hero or a mathematical god, but in the fairness of the rules we agree to follow.

Would you like to see how Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance" is being used in 2026 to program "fairness algorithms" in autonomous legal systems?

- GoogleAI 

In 2026, roping in Richard Rorty (1931–2007) acts as a "deconstructive bomb" dropped into the middle of the systematizing tradition of Wolff and Rawls. If Wolff and Rawls are the "architects" of reality, Rorty is the person telling them that their blueprints are just poems.

Rorty’s relationship to this lineage is defined by rejection and repurposing:

1. The Rejection of "The Mirror of Nature" (Against Wolff)

• Wolff’s Dream: Wolff believed that human reason could perfectly mirror the mathematical structure of the universe.
• Rorty’s Verdict: Rorty argued that there is no "Truth" out there waiting to be discovered by a "mathematical method." Philosophy is not a mirror; it is a toolbox. In 2026, Rorty is seen as the ultimate "Anti-Wolff" because he believes that "objectivity" is just a fancy word for "inter-subjective agreement."

2. From "System" to "Conversation" (Against Rawls)

• The Conflict: Rawls wanted a "lexical ordering" of justice that would hold for all time. Rorty found this too "metaphysical."
• The Rortyan Twist: Rorty liked Rawls’s conclusions (liberalism, fairness) but hated his reasons (the Veil of Ignorance). Rorty argued that we don't need a "rational foundation" for justice; we just need to keep the conversation going. In 2026, Rorty’s "Liberal Ironist" is the person who fights for justice while admitting that their reasons for doing so are "contingent" and "historical."

3. The Return to Plutarch (Philosophy as Literature)

• The Resonance: Paradoxically, Rorty is much closer to Plutarch than to the Enlightenment thinkers.
• Moral Growth through Stories: Rorty believed that we become better people not by studying "First Principles" (Wolff) but by reading novels and biographies (Plutarch). He argued that empathy is expanded by hearing the "sad stories" of others, which is exactly what Plutarch’s Lives attempted to do.
• 2026 Context: In 2026, Rorty’s "Sentimental Education" is being used to critique the "cold logic" of AI ethics. Rortians argue that an AI can follow Rawls’s rules, but it can never feel the "Plutarchan" sting of a sad story.

4. Rorty and the "Rhizome" (The Ultimate Reconciliation)

Rorty’s philosophy is essentially a Rhizomatic one:

• He rejects the "Tree" of Truth (the single root).
• He embraces the "and-and-and" of different vocabularies (science and poetry and politics).
• Aurobindonian Intersection: For a student of Sri Aurobindo, Rorty represents the limit of the Mind. Rorty correctly identifies that the mental reason cannot find the absolute Truth (it just finds better "descriptions"). However, where Rorty says "there is no Truth," Aurobindo would say "there is a Truth, but it is Supramental, beyond the reach of Rorty’s linguistic tools."

Summary of the 2026 "Philosophical Battle"

Feature	Christian Wolff	John Rawls	Richard Rorty
View of Truth	A mathematical certainty.	A structural fairness.	A useful social consensus.
Method	Mathematical Proof.	The Veil of Ignorance.	Redescription (Storytelling).
Philosophy is...	A Science.	A Legal Framework.	A Literary Genre.
Aurobindonian Equivalent	The Pure Reason (Manas).	The Ethical Mind.	The Sceptical/Vital Mind.

The 2026 Verdict: Rorty "clears the ground" for a more spiritual view like Aurobindo’s by proving that human reason is a dead end. He leaves us in a world where we are free to "redescribe" ourselves—a freedom that Aurobindo would use to describe the descent of the Divine, while Rorty would use it to describe the progress of the secular state.

Would you like to see how Rorty’s "Liberal Ironism" is being used in 2026 to defend "Human-Centric Content" against the flood of "Logic-Centric" AI writing?

- GoogleAI https://share.google/aimode/wQ4K0XStONie5fToY 

Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra