Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1998 12:13:27 EST Subject: RE: Paralogy Hugh, I was totally dumbfounded by your comment that to "not insist on some ultimate =93word, presence, essence, truth or reality to act as the foundation of all thought, language and experience=94 is a facist pronouncement. To me it is the totalizing authoritarianism of the foundational philosophies that is closer to fascism. The postmodernist call to free ourselves from the constraining ideologies of ultimate truth and reality are liberating ideas not fascist. I wondered how the word fascism worked itself into a discussion of the postmodern. Then quite by coincidence while flipping through TV channels last night I caught the last few minutes of a Masterpiece Theater presentation. Since I only saw the last few minutes I have no idea of the context, but what I saw was a sinister looking character being accused of fascism because of his deconstructionist position. Then I remembered how accusations of fascism had been used to attack poststructuralist philosophers by the =93holy arbiters=94 of tradition. As I recall, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Paul DeMann were all accused of fascist thought. Nietzsche was implicated for advocating irrationalism and his often misunderstood position on the =93superman=94; Heidegger for following Nietzsche and DeMann for actually collaberating with the Natzi=92s. The relationship of Natzi doctrine to Nietzsche=92s philosophy and the defense of Nietzsche is to complex to discuss here and I am not sure I could do it justice. Suffice it to say that challenging rationalism does not advocate an irrationalism such as exhibited by the Natzi=92s. That is a modern misunderstanding of the critique of rationalism that doesn=92t recognize the limitations of binary thought. However, I would like to briefly discuss the postmodern critique of truth and certainty as potentially fascist tools. Foucault in his critique of enlightenment traditions has shown the way in which social institutions, discourses and practices contribute to the formation of individuals as subjects in the interest of power. Deleuze and Guattari carry the idea a step farther by suggesting that subjectivities, so formed, produce authoritarian egos and provide fertile ground for fascism. While Lyotard doesn=92t use the word fascism in the PMC I think that his use of the word terror comes close. I believe what he is saying is that the totalizing enlightenment epistemologies prohibit the free exchange of ideas in a sort of fascistic authoritarian way. Please don=92t take this the wrong way, but I would like to subject your use of the dictionary to a postmodern critique. Much of the postmodern literature has been grounded on the problematic of language and the instability of meaning. following this, the dictionary could be thought of as an authoritarian tool which attempts to impose absolute meaning. While it is useful as you use it to ground our conversations, it can also be used as Lyotard might say, to limit ideas. You make the point that, =93In dialogue, or group exchange of concepts, we still need understanding and agreement on the words we hear, speak.=94 While in some sense this is true, in that we do need some common starting point, to think that the dictionary definitions can provide the foundation for our conversations is very limiting. Just a couple of examples based on the definitions you provided: PHILOSOPHY: 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs If we were use this narrow view of philosophy, Lyotard would be disqualified as a philosopher as he is challenging the very concept of reality rather than looking for it. WISDOM:1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense : JUDGMENT d : generally accepted belief If wisdom were no more that the accumulation of philosophic or scientific learning then it wouldn't hold much stature as our learning is constantly in flux. And as far as wisdom being good sense or generally accepted belief, is wisdom really no more than common sense? REALITY: 1 : the quality or state of being real 2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily - in reality : in actual fact This is a tough one. It is convenient to have a simplistic definition of reality for everyday life because so much of what we do is based on the tangible. But the concept carries over into all thought such that it becomes restrictive and repressive. Postmodern philosophy is challenging that reductionist view of reality. In summary, I don=92t think our reading of a postmodern essay can be limited to dictionary definitions. The very idea of postmodern philosophy is that it is pushing meaning way beyond its common usage. Nor do I think that postmodern philosophy is in any way fascist. On the contrary it seeks to challenge the foundations that are so necessary to an authoritarian state. Don
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005