Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 16:50:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: PKF: Would Feyerabend have defended Wittgenstein and Whorfagainst



There has been quite a lot of talk about Chomsky lately:

> -Chomsky says that if the Clinton doctrine on retaliation is to be
> taken literally, ``then all around the world there are countries
> that have a perfect right to set off bombs in Washington.'' -
> Irresopnsible tripe. Of course he stings it with his opposition to 
> terrorism and belief that terrorists should be tried below, but
> a man in touch with the real world does not make such statements,
> because evil men are selective in what they read...they will ignore
> his condemnation and only see his principled justification of terrorism.

> These are the figmentive, but potential, terrorists which you
> wanted me to name, Daedalus. Hope you, and whoever
> others on the list you were representing (I am sure there were) 
> are satisfied now. I still prefer the ambiguity of the narrative form,
> which I think does not interest you...it provokes reactions to
> statements which are red hot with possible truth and possible error,
> and I think that kind of narrative is useful.

Feyerabend wrote a response to his critics, shortly after the publication
of the first edition of Against Method, entitled 'Conversations with
Illiterates.'  Presumably, the reasons why Feyerabend supposed that his
critics were illiterate are familiar to most of the people on this list,
so I won't go into them in any great detail.

However, this interpretation of Chomsky exemplifies most of them.  

If their author could explain his preference for 'his kind of narrative'
in a little more depth, it might help illuminate matters for me a bit.

Thanks,
Scott Cassells

**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu