Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:46:10 +1000
From: hbone <hbone-AT-optonline.net>
Subject: Re: readings on the 11th september


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_UxYiTgo/09D+XmNXE800gw)

Steve,

Agree with you on the item you quote.  Its a bit like saying Brits, or some Brits think they are better than non-Brits.  Of course they would be wrong.

I was interested in the de-divinization of the things believers cling to, and the examples given.

Wittgenstein wondered:  If you had to give up all your beliefs, which would you give up last?
I would suggest the belief in believing.

Hugh
  ----- Original Message -----
  Fr
  om: steve.devos
  To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:12 AM
  Subject: Re: readings on the 11th september


  Hugh
  to raise the work of the liberal Rorty in the ruins of  liberal-democracy, as reality proves the poverty of his philosophical and political thought - liberal irony seems such a useless idea in times like these - but then it always did....

  Let me quote one of the most repulsive passages in a philosophical text in my possession - "...do we say that these people must be helped because they are human beings? We may, but its is much more persasive , morally as well as politically, to describe them as fellow Americans - to insist that it is outrageous that an American should live without hope ..." (P191 in Contingency....)  And the appeal is what of such a thinker who would appeal to such an appalling piece of reasoning.

  of course it failed which makes the point rather critical don't you think?

  regards
  steve

  hbone wrote:

Eric/AllEric, I'm in substantial agreement with both your messages, the philosophicone,and  the political message that followed.I'll make a few comments on the philosophic here, and perhaps get to thepolitical later.First, a couple of quotes that seem relevant:1) "The emphasis on the cognitive is out of step with the post-modernthought of today.  Gadamer, for example, argues that Kant's ideal ofthinking for oneself is both impossible and undesirable.  Thinking is alwaysclosely connected with our own historical and cultural horizon, with theresult that reason and understanding are never pure.  Derrida questions ourability to know things just as they are, thereby critiquing the modernistscientific enterprise.  Rorty dismisses foundationalism and questionswhether the self can ever be completely oneself, only a tissue ofcontingencies which are highly dependent upon the influences of onehistorical and cultural context.  From these come a thoroughgoing relativismin the form and content of schooling."2) "The chief importance of Rorty's work lies in his criticism of thetraditional notion of truth.  Truth as conceived by most traditionalphilosophers is static, final, perfect and even eternal.  It may beidentified with God, 'Being', 'the will topower', 'The Will', 'Reason', 'The Spirit,' etc.  These are, according toRorty "only descriptions of the world".  Thus we should drop the idea oflanguage as representation and..."de-divinize the world", that is, we shouldget to the point where we no longer worship anything...our language, ourconscience, our community as a product of time and chance.  In other words,there is nothing called 'Truth'"Comparing the above with your reinterpretation of Kant, it seems that Kant"divinized" "ends", and all we have to do is fill in the blanks, i.e.select"ends" fromt
oday's scenarios. This is a very pragmatic approach - its meaning is itsresult - and Isuppose Rorty would approve.You wrote,At the heart of Kantian ethics is what Kant himself called the 'kingdomof ends' and here too we must reinterpret this in a much more radicalway. Taken literally it means that there must be an end to domination ofevery kind; whether this is racism, sexism, authoritarianism,exploitation, chattel slavery, wage slavery, and any form of socialexistence where one person must become subservient to another. In short,Kant's imperative entails that we transform an existing set ofsituations that are planetary in their scope to create a world in whichthere are No Gods and No Masters. In short, it means we called upon tomake an autopoietic society.The pragmatic approach de-divinizes, but doesn't quench the hunger for"justice, legitimization, the social bond" or other God-substitutes."Feelings" about the sublime, the event, the unnamable, a huge family ofintuitions, abstractions, wishes and dreams, continue to press/impress the"mind".What is the origin?   One possibility is the existential necessity thataccompanied the species-evolution of  homo-sapiens:  "act, react, or die".Lyotard refers somewhere to "hearkening", and notes how, in extremesituations, action precedes cognition.Michael Frayn, in the play "Copenhagen",  has Heisenberg, an expert skier,describe how, plunging down a dangerous slope at max speed, a decision"makesitself".best regards,Hugh
--Boundary_(ID_UxYiTgo/09D+XmNXE800gw)

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

Fr

om: steve.devos

To: lyotard-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 10:12 AM

Subject: Re: readings on the 11th september

Hugh
to raise the work of the liberal Rorty in the ruins of  liberal-democracy, as reality proves the poverty of his philosophical and political thought - liberal irony seems such a useless idea in times like these - but then it always did....

Let me quote one of the most repulsive passages in a philosophical text in my possession - "...do we say that these people must be helped because they are human beings? We may, but its is much more persasive , morally as well as politically, to describe them as fellow Americans - to insist that it is outrageous that an American should live without hope ..." (P191 in Contingency....)  And the appeal is what of such a thinker who would appeal to such an appalling piece of reasoning.

of course it failed which makes the point rather critical don't you think?

regards
steve

hbone wrote:

Eric/All

Eric, I'm in substantial agreement with both your messages, the philosophic
one,
and  the political message that followed.

I'll make a few comments on the philosophic here, and perhaps get to the
political later.

First, a couple of quotes that seem relevant:

1) "The emphasis on the cognitive is out of step with the post-modern
thought of today.  Gadamer, for example, argues that Kant's ideal of
thinking for oneself is both impossible and undesirable.  Thinking is always
closely connected with our own historical and cultural horizon, with the
result that reason and understanding are never pure.  Derrida questions our
ability to know things just as they are, thereby critiquing the modernist
scientific enterprise.  Rorty dismisses foundationalism and questions
whether the self can ever be completely oneself, only a tissue of
contingencies which are highly dependent upon the influences of one
historical and cultural context.  From these come a thoroughgoing relativism
in the form and content of schooling."

2) "The chief importance of Rorty's work lies in his criticism of the
traditional notion of truth.  Truth as conceived by most traditional
philosophers is static, final, perfect and even eternal.  It may be
identified with God, 'Being', 'the will to
power', 'The Will', 'Reason', 'The Spirit,' etc.  These are, according to
Rorty "only descriptions of the world".  Thus we should drop the idea of
language as representation and..."de-divinize the world", that is, we should
get to the point where we no longer worship anything...our language, our
conscience, our community as a product of time and chance.  In other words,
there is nothing called 'Truth'"

Comparing the above with your reinterpretation of Kant, it seems that Kant
"divinized" "ends", and all we have to do is fill in the blanks, i.e.select
"ends" from
t
oday's scenarios. This is a very pragmatic approach - its meaning is its
result - and I
suppose Rorty would approve.

You wrote,

At the heart of Kantian ethics is what Kant himself called the 'kingdom
of ends' and here too we must reinterpret this in a much more radical
way. Taken literally it means that there must be an end to domination of
every kind; whether this is racism, sexism, authoritarianism,
exploitation, chattel slavery, wage slavery, and any form of social
existence where one person must become subservient to another. In short,
Kant's imperative entails that we transform an existing set of
situations that are planetary in their scope to create a world in which
there are No Gods and No Masters. In short, it means we called upon to
make an autopoietic society.

The pragmatic approach de-divinizes, but doesn't quench the hunger for
"justice, legitimization, the social bond" or other God-substitutes.

"Feelings" about the sublime, the event, the unnamable, a huge family of
intuitions, abstractions, wishes and dreams, continue to press/impress the
"mind".

What is the origin?   One possibility is the existential necessity that
accompanied the species-evolution of  homo-sapiens:  "act, react, or die".

Lyotard refers somewhere to "hearkening", and notes how, in extreme
situations, action precedes cognition.

Michael Frayn, in the play "Copenhagen",  has Heisenberg, an expert skier,
describe how, plunging down a dangerous slope at max speed, a decision
"makes
itself".

best regards,
Hugh