Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:54:16 -0500
From: "George Y. Trail" <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
Subject: Re: PLC: RE: National Socialism and Truth


As Mr Lawrence would have put it, "oo bloomin' ray." One suspects that
the discussion would be much aided by a distinction between Truth and
truth. You know well that Romantics, now post-romantics, are called
"postmodernists" on accounta few could handle Romanticism as something
utterly other than some vague and simplistic reading of Wordsworth. 

Of course Nietzsche is a Romantic. So also is Hume. And so here we are.
So when someone laments the lack of belief in, or denial of, "truth," I
think the typical pomo reaction is to breath in, raise one's eyebrows,
exhale slowly saying to oneself "Oh, shit, not again--is not this over
yet? Is it possible for a thinking person to lament the loss of "Truth"
as if there was some going back, as if it were possible to recover the
concept?  

And Howard, com permisso, wouldn't that be "Scot's common sense? Scotch,
one has been told, is a whiskey. One would be happy to be corrected. 
The real question would be how would Sean Connery feel about it? 


> The situation is rather like that which followed the publication of Hume's
> Enquiry (1748), with the modern day Reids and Beatties extracting some
> statements or conclusions from Foucault, Derrida, et. al. and then showing
> how absurd these are from the view point of Scotch common sense.
> 
> hh
> .....................................................................
> 
>      --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---