From: dmwri1-AT-student.monash.edu.au Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 11:08:22 +1000 Subject: Re: Truth > > I was playing with translation toys. What I'm interested in > gauging your response to is the complex of ideas around > Sartre's notion of *engagement* (that's the French for the time > being)... [gilligan] > > Funny you should mention that. The Note I took this from is a > critique of Sartre. [Ken] > Thought so. It's funny that Sartre managed to be condescended to, patronised and belittled by both Heidegger and Adorno, who represent interesting poles in Sartre's own thought. Why is Adorno a pole in Sartre? Because he is a possibility for Marx-derived enlightenment. > Commitment rests upon an absolute. Critical thought rests on > the negation of what is not autonomous. I am advocating > freedom over stance. The law is commited. And if we follow > Derrida, whose books sell for less than those of Adorno, one > might see that the law is a mystical force - a metaphysical > force - not too far from commitment. > And if we follow Derrida, that freedom might also be play. > "He who is not for me is against me" is a commitment, an > engagement. All it leaves is an abstract authority of the > choice enjoined, without regard for the fact that the very > possibility of choice is dependent on what is to be chosen - > "The prescribed form of the alternatives through which Sartre > wants to prove that freedom can be lost negates freedom" > (Adorno, Notes to Literature, Vol. 2, 79). The idea that one can > accept or reject torture, for instance, inwardly, as Herbert > Marcuse noted, is nonsense. When commitment presents > decisions to be made and makes those decisions their > criteria, the choices become interchangeable... > Yes, it's a strong critique. But do you think Adorno has a better understanding of praxis, better than the practico-inert/engagement model? > Kenneth, the derriere-garde of the avant-garde. > Does that make you a batty-man? gilligan.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005