From: "Nathan Goralnik" <rhizome85-AT-home.com> Subject: Re: if -- And Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:46:29 -0700 Aaron (and Stuart and Asher) I understand what you're saying. I just don't think the reference to pragmatism is particularly a propos. Rorty's public/private dichotomy doesn't really establish a spatial ontology (I mean, it effectively does) but at it's root it's just a political distinction: don't let Martin Heidegger influence your public values. I just think that what you're referring to is Arendt's dichotomy :) That's all. Perhaps this will only be of interest to Stuart and Asher, but I think Spanos provides an interesting defense of Heidegger from Rorty: the idea that Dasein's technological relationship to the world saturates Western culture in a lateral continuum. Rorty's public/private distinction then seems rather arbitrary and reactionary. Nate TekUtopia-AT-aol.com: << I'm not referring so much to Arendt as the notion that there there are mutually exclusive spaces in one's life (i.e. the pragmatic idea of living one way in your private life and differently in the public sphere). Can we separate Foucault's private sexual values from the values that he writes about. It seems naive to say that Foucault's sexuality is automatically separated from his public discourse. I'm certainly not sure what connection there is, but I can't automatically rule it out. F's experience with psychiatry helped to shape his attitude towards "madness" and their "treatment." >>
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005