you've clearly studied modern philosophy in depth.. i haven't unfortunately, but i've had some exposure to rorty - i own "achieving our country".
from what i gathered, and remember, rorty is a quintessential progressive - one who is sympathetic to leftist sentiments, but realizes that communism is not the answer. politically, he seems fixated in the 60's (progressive) reform movement, which is something he hopes will return in our future.
his choice to accept grey area, rather than pin down precise definitions, is noteworthy. as he said, "no achievement can give us a template on which to model our future". i agree with that statement - political philosophy has changed throughout our short existance on this planet. when rorty talks about "truth", i believe he's referring to truth in the way that plato did - universal truth.
connecting the two together, using the quote you cited, rorty says:
Quote:
| I have argued that we should substitute this latter search for the traditional descriptions of the quest for truth. |
i.e. a quest for universal truth taking into account the historical variations in the perception of truth. since it has changed numerous times, is changing and will continue to change, this eliminates the possibility of having a solid definition of truth as far as rorty's concerned.
as much as i prefer to accept a variety of definitions of truth, from plato to hobbes to machiavelli, rorty does make a solid point: since it has changed so many times, any attempt to define it will most likely add to the diverse definitions that exist, rather than become the definitive definition.
also, i think his refusal to accept the notion of universal moral concern is based on his analysis of the failure of communism, and flaws of socialism. in each case, neither has amounted in reality to what they were intended to be in theory. it is a pragmatic approach, but it does not mean that he is not concerned, quite the contrary.