Reply to comment

Rorty says

"there is no need to weave one's personal equivalent of Trotsky and one's personal equivalent of my wild orchids together ... The two will, for some lucky people, coincide ... But they need not coincide, and one should not try too hard to make them do so ... Singlemindedness ... is the quest for purity of heart - the attempt to will one thing - gone rancid. It is the attempt to see yourself as an incarnation of something larger than yourself ... rather than accepting your finitude. The latter means, among other things, accepting that what matters to you may never matter much to most people ."

Yep, "nothing makes the shared automatically BETTER than the unshared" but that doesn't preclude one valuing both. Nor does it preclude oneself having a taste (shared or not) for getting "as much intersubjective agreement as we can manage". Nor for seeing "different people getting to a place in different ways" as evidence of a "some kind of meaningful there there", ie of a there about which there is some intersubjective agreement. Yes, there can be other kinds of "meaningful there"s but that's among the good ones. In my particular multi-minded "finitude" (and probably Rorty's as well), offered for whatever use it might be to others.