Date: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 08:57:59 -0500 (EST)
Subject: re:tv...


On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, j laari wrote:

> No, we don't. Seems she's just coming there among other libertarianism
> - sort of shift from franks to libertarianism has been on the way
> recently, I guess.

Depressing. Even the best of it (Robert Nozick, Jan Narveson, etc.) is
rather low grade, argumentatively speaking. ANd politically . . . .

I have a piece on libertarianism, From Libertarianism to
Egalitarianism, Social Theory and Practice Fall 1993. It's an attack on
the labor theory of property variant. G.A. Cohem also gioves
libertarianism a long and scathing look in his recent book on Self
Ownership. 

The TV Program with Chris S.:
> 
> Basically the program seemed to be of political philosophy. At least
> the studio guests concentrated on it - discussion on Kant and Hegel
> was quite shallow. Russian guest (don't know his name) tried obviously
> to explain the significance of german idealism to contemporary russian
> phil. but - as one studio guest said, "Kant was an irrationalist
> dummie" (!!!)

Words fail me.

 - somehow failed. Finns haven't been very keen to german
> idealism recently (reminds too mucho marxism-leninism, I guess),

As, the revolutionary kernel in the reactionary husk. Hegel should feel
flattered.

> except to Heildegger.

Not a German idealist, just a reactionary. In fact, a Nazi. I don'r
denigrate his very considerable philosophical abilities.

 Fichte was also mentioned, and if there were any
> references to Schelling they were earlier. I didn't catched any. The
> point with contemporary Russians seems to be the age-old insistence on
> both intelligence and emotion (as if emotions are thinking): "western
> phil." is called 'cold rationalism', or somesuch.

In 1993 I attended the XX World Congress of Philosophy in Moscow with
Radical Philosophy Assn contingent, including Frank Cunningham (Toronto),
Rodney Peffer (San Diego), and a then grad student of mine. The caliber of
the Russian philosphers was unbelievably low. It was embarassing. I recall
one fellow gave a talk on humanism from Erasmus to the present, all broad
strokes, no argument, mostly vague and incomprehensible rubbish. Humanism
was a good think, he thought, but what it was exactly no one could tell.
There was a lot of religious claptrap. Now I think religious philosophy
can be good philosophy--think of Abelard, Aquinas, or Augustine or today
people like George Mavrodes or Alvin Plantinga. But this stuff was pure
obscurantism.

Incidentally theCongress was held in the former Higher Party School, which
some wag has reconstituted as a School of Management. There was still at
the time a huge statute of a brooding Lenin in the front hall.The
facilities were pretty good, as opposed to those at the Institute of Labor
for training trade union leaders where we RPA-ers stayed. That was a Hotel
Tarrakan, a real cockroach motel. At night the creatures literally
covered the walls, which were black with them, even with the lights on.


 Today old,
> long-repressed theosophical and such sort of religious and mystical
> imaginary is in the process of being re-vitalized in Russia, and the
> phenomenon also finds expression in philosophy.

Yes.

> Actually, the reason I lost the Absence prograam was another
> discussion where one of the contemporary top finn philosophers was on

I guess I had the misimpression that Scandanavian philosophywas more like
Anglo-American philosophy. I drew this from acquaintance with the likes of
Dagfinn Follesdal, Jon Elster, Arne Naess, etc.

--Justin