Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:54:47 +1100
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: How many happenings to break 4 silences?


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_3ORIwb1WGA3J7GJYY/I3/g)

  Steve wrote:

  >Eric/All,
  >As I edge towards working my way towards replying to the body of the email, which >in my view relates to the question of truth, rather than the opposition that you >propose. From that I would suggest that since  philosophy is the means by which >we seize truths it is necessary for us to critique those aspects of the works under >consideration. It amuses me here that as far as I can ascertain only 'I' seem to think >there is a problem (at all) with Lyotard's approach to the crisis he, in a sense >personifies. This crisis, which is associated with the collapse of the metanarratives ?>is normally referred to as the crisis of metaphysics,  the heart of the postmodern> >critique. This produces in the work of Lyotard, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and so on >the familiar anxiety of the question of truth. Broadly speaking philosophy is often >thought to be nostalgic for the moment, long gone now, when it was supposed to be >able to answer questions related to human existence. For postmodernity this is >regarded as a sign of a sickness at the heart of our western philosophy.  Part of >Lyotard's take on this issue is related to both the crisis in knowledge - proposed >through the analysis of the death of grandnarratives/metanarratives - but also the >issues related to the holocaust  and the Victim (as historical subject) (which you will >have to answer more adequately than you have chosen to so far). Whilst I have >some sympathy for the former the latter may no longer be defensible.

  ~~

  Instead of characterizing the victims as constructs of the imagination of long-dead philosophers, can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.

  Religious believers will cede vengeance to God.  Atheists believe in the philosophy du jour and may or may not seek new murders for revenge.

  Loved ones who survive the deceased have been wronged, They seek solace, remedy, material restitution to support their own lives and the lives of their children.

  They should receive the full measure of justice their community can give.

  But following historical precedent they are likely to be promised  a "just" war, or a war in "defense of humanity".  "Holy" violence by a State determined to end violence !

  regards,
  Hugh



--Boundary_(ID_3ORIwb1WGA3J7GJYY/I3/g)

HTML VERSION:

Steve wrote:

 

>Eric/All,

>As I edge towards working my way towards replying to the body of the email, which >in my view relates to the question of truth, rather than the opposition that you >propose. From that I would suggest that since  philosophy is the means by which >we seize truths it is necessary for us to critique those aspects of the works under >consideration. It amuses me here that as far as I can ascertain only 'I' seem to think >there is a problem (at all) with Lyotard's approach to the crisis he, in a sense >personifies. This crisis, which is associated with the collapse of the metanarratives ?>is normally referred to as the crisis of metaphysics,  the heart of the postmodern> >critique. This produces in the work of Lyotard, Heidegger, Wittgenstein and so on >the familiar anxiety of the question of truth. Broadly speaking philosophy is often >thought to be nostalgic for the moment, long gone now, when it was supposed to be >able to answer questions related to human existence. For postmodernity this is >regarded as a sign of a sickness at the heart of our western philosophy.  Part of >Lyotard's take on this issue is related to both the crisis in knowledge - proposed >through the analysis of the death of grandnarratives/metanarratives - but also the >issues related to the holocaust  and the Victim (as historical subject) (which you will >have to answer more adequately than you have chosen to so far). Whilst I have >some sympathy for the former the latter may no longer be defensible.

 

~~

 

Instead of characterizing the victims as constructs of the imagination of long-dead philosophers, can't we simply perceive victims of past and present holocausts, genocides, sucide bombers, military attacks, as murdered human beings?  They no longer exist. For them,  justice (Le Differend) is not an issue.

 

Religious believers will cede vengeance to God.  Atheists believe in the philosophy du jour and may or may not seek new murders for revenge.

 

Loved ones who survive the deceased have been wronged, They seek solace, remedy, material restitution to support their own lives and the lives of their children.

 

They should receive the full measure of justice their community can give.

 

But following historical precedent they are likely to be promised  a "just" war, or a war in "defense of humanity".  "Holy" violence by a State determined to end violence !

 

regards,

Hugh