File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9708, message 56

Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 23:53:28 -0400
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: BHA: Science, theology and witchcraft

Hi guys,

Just a quick note:

Ralph wrote, among other things:
"...I am always perturbed by the academic habit of placing your 
"opponent" within a context that he never asked to be part of.  Assuming 
somebody is taking up a Kantian position because the position is 
reminiscent of a Kantian one, that sort of thing."

I really agree with this, and since I'm the only person who's said 
anything about Kant recently, I wanted to try to defend my good name!  
First, I *certainly* didn't think of Michael as an opponent -- I'm sorry 
that it seemed that way.  Second, I'm not an *expert* on Adorno, but he 
for sure knew his Kant, and while (as I indicated) I wouldn't have 
articulated the idea of `the primacy of the object' in just the way that 
Michael did, it didn't seem inaccurate, or even particularly 
significant, to characterize Michael's formulation as one which recalled 
Adorno's own relation, I do think quite given, to Kant.  And the comma 
was important:  when I said "..this, kind of Kantian take..," I meant 
"this kind-of-Kantian take," not "these damn Kantians.."  

Then again I've been reading about transcendental arguments recently, so 
maybe I just have Kant on the brain.


     --- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005