In this essay Khosrow Bagheri Noaparast argues that, by focusing on acculturation and edification, Richard Rorty has provided a promising view for education because without acculturation, education turns into a destructive endeavor, and without edification, education risks the danger of being repetitive and reproductive. However, Rorty's view is problematic in terms of the characteristics he holds for acculturation and edification, as well as the incommensurable relation he maintains exists between the two. Noaparast asserts that there are three unnecessary dichotomies in Rorty's educational view: sentiment versus argument, solidarity versus objectivity, and acculturation versus edification. In the case of the first dichotomy, Noaparast contends, one should combine sentiment and argument or else embrace arbitrariness in dealing with different frames of reference. As for the second dichotomy, since solidarity is vital in providing us with scientific consensus, it cannot be the alternative to objectivity. Finally, the third dichotomy would make the very idea of edification impossible to realize unless there can be a relation between the two phases of education. Noaparast concludes that Rorty's view on education holds great promise if we can find a way around these dichotomies.