File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0302, message 47


Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 18:46:42 +0000
Subject: Re: what is at stake with fear?




Hugh

The latter point simply doesn't work - it must assume that either prior 
to govenments existing, or after modern govenmentshave ceased existing, 
after they have been eradicated perhaps, some forms of mediated 'fear' 
will cease to exist. Whilst we can imagine, in suitably utopian terms, 
that after a succesful social-revolution and the eradication of the 
society of the spectacle that such fears will be eradicated - but why 
would we be that naive ?  Recently the list has touched on the work of 
Ken Macleod  in these works as in the work of the earlier novels of the 
Strugatsky brothers; post-the-revolution work, effort, war and death 
still exist. It seems unreasonable to generalise that war and terror 
will dissapear with this society...

The point that most philosophers appear to be making is that 'fear' as 
such is founded on the "idea of outsideness" and that the "world that is 
simply to alien and other" - there is ample  evidence to suggest that 
this is a reasonably rational response to the world.

regards
steve

hbone wrote:

> Steve/All,
>  
> IMHO fear in the human organism is a biological trait evolved during 
> the history of homo-sapiens and antecedent species.  It is a 
> spontaneous personal response to life-threatening danger, and may mean 
> the difference between death and survival.
>  
> Fear of war and terrorists is - like the Spectacle and Advertising - 
> promoted worldwide by governments (and corporations who 
> influence governments) to further the plutocratic ambitions of 
> individuals who own and/or control those those institutions.
>  
> regards,
> Hugh
>  
>
> ~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^ 
>
>
>  
>
> In the Dialectic Of Enlightenment Adorno and Horkheimer  say Nothing 
> at all
> > may remain outside, because the very idea of outsideness is the very 
> source
> > of fear It is this which marks the very core of Western thought. The
> > source of this notion of fear is that world is alien and other  the 
> other
> > hear being marked by the notion of the other derived from psychoanlysis
> > not as has been suggested at times the same alien and other as 
> understood by
> > Levinas but that is another approach. Elsewhere in Negative 
> dialectics and
> > obviously following this line of thought Adorno refers to idealism 
> as rage
> > once again referring to a world that is simply to alien and other to be
> > dominated. Idealism as Adorno defines and understands it, is rage 
> against
> > the otherness of the natural and perhaps unnatural world, which 
> cannot be
> > dominated by the mind of humans. It does seem to me that Adorno (and
> > Horkheimer) particularism, his "negative dialectic" with it's
> > psychoanalytical understanding of the other helps point towards a way of
> > addressing the particular issue of fear, as derived from the society we
> > exist within.
> >
> > Does this placing of fear in the frame of the western tradition help in
> > clarifying what is philosophically at stake here? Do we following 
> the great
> > critique of the dominant western tradition need to place "fear" in a
> > different philosophical context?
> >
> >
> > regards
> > steve
> >
>


HTML VERSION:

Hugh

The latter point simply doesn't work - it must assume that either prior to govenments existing, or after modern govenmentshave ceased existing, after they have been eradicated perhaps, some forms of mediated 'fear' will cease to exist. Whilst we can imagine, in suitably utopian terms, that after a succesful social-revolution and the eradication of the society of the spectacle that such fears will be eradicated - but why would we be that naive ?  Recently the list has touched on the work of Ken Macleod  in these works as in the work of the earlier novels of the Strugatsky brothers; post-the-revolution work, effort, war and death still exist. It seems unreasonable to generalise that war and terror will dissapear with this society...

The point that most philosophers appear to be making is that 'fear' as such is founded on the "idea of outsideness" and that the "world that is simply to alien and other" - there is ample  evidence to suggest that this is a reasonably rational response to the world.

regards
steve

hbone wrote:
Steve/All,
 
IMHO fear in the human organism is a biological trait evolved during the history of homo-sapiens and antecedent species.  It is a spontaneous personal response to life-threatening danger, and may mean the difference between death and survival.
 
Fear of war and terrorists is - like the Spectacle and Advertising - promoted worldwide by governments (and corporations who influence governments) to further the plutocratic ambitions of individuals who own and/or control those those institutions.
 
regards,
Hugh
 

~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^*^~^

 

In the Dialectic Of Enlightenment Adorno and Horkheimer  say Nothing at all
> may remain outside, because the very idea of outsideness is the very source
> of fear It is this which marks the very core of Western thought. The
> source of this notion of fear is that world is alien and other  the other
> hear being marked by the notion of the other derived from psychoanlysis
> not as has been suggested at times the same alien and other as understood by
> Levinas but that is another approach. Elsewhere in Negative dialectics and
> obviously following this line of thought Adorno refers to idealism as rage
> once again referring to a world that is simply to alien and other to be
> dominated. Idealism as Adorno defines and understands it, is rage against
> the otherness of the natural and perhaps unnatural world, which cannot be
> dominated by the mind of humans. It does seem to me that Adorno (and
> Horkheimer) particularism, his "negative dialectic" with it's
> psychoanalytical understanding of the other helps point towards a way of
> addressing the particular issue of fear, as derived from the society we
> exist within.
>
> Does this placing of fear in the frame of the western tradition help in
> clarifying what is philosophically at stake here? Do we following the great
> critique of the dominant western tradition need to place "fear" in a
> different philosophical context?
>
>
> regards
> steve
>



Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005