tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post7359968502706996874..comments2024-03-26T12:23:29.784-04:00Comments on Philosoraptor: Winston Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-45403135884187559942008-12-03T08:28:00.000-05:002008-12-03T08:28:00.000-05:00FWIW, I'm often inclined to group philosophers acc...FWIW, I'm often inclined to group philosophers according to their methods. So from my perspective, Z looks a lot like the PoMos, since he doesn't seem to aim at careful argument, but, rather, writes in a quasi-literary style. Basically everybody who does that goes into the same category in my book.<BR/><BR/>Except for Nietzsche.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-53163032608782385912008-12-03T00:48:00.000-05:002008-12-03T00:48:00.000-05:00You lump Zizek in with the post-modernists, but as...You lump Zizek in with the post-modernists, but as that TNR article points out, he's a hard-core ideologue, and like most ideologues, he has no truck with po-mo. He views post-modernism as Satre did, as the last refuge of the bourgoise. Now, I'm not a fan of Zizek, but I do think that this view is generally correct. Po-mo got defined as "leftist" in the 90s due to it's obsession with identity matthew christmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05330195818856343750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-37689614735084396202008-12-02T18:24:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:24:00.000-05:00Oh, and, by the way: even your charitable reconstr...Oh, and, by the way: even your charitable reconstruction of Z's argument is laughable, as I'm sure you'll admit.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-47846639171522185782008-12-02T18:23:00.000-05:002008-12-02T18:23:00.000-05:00Sorry, A, you're a different Anonymous than I thou...Sorry, A, you're a different Anonymous than I thought. I thought you were irritating Anonymous. Please to forgive overly snide response above.<BR/><BR/>I think you're being way, way, way too charitable to Mr. Z...though I'm probably going to say something more detailed about the paper later, so I won't go into it now.<BR/><BR/>Analytic philosophers definitely have their own problems, but in Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-25835558287604177422008-12-02T16:46:00.000-05:002008-12-02T16:46:00.000-05:00I read the paper you link to, and it's not *that* ...I read the paper you link to, and it's not *that* bad. Certainly, it's not Derrida/Fish bad. The argument seems to go roughly like this: Concepts of essential propertie are artifacts of language, such concepts allow us to make impersonal generalizations concerning other people, such generalizations play an important role in political violence, so, use of language fosters political violence as Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-53721274586105853912008-12-02T07:24:00.000-05:002008-12-02T07:24:00.000-05:00LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO...LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOO.....<BR/>LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....<BR/>LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOO<BR/>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLL<BR/><BR/>Oh, man, A. You are, like, some kind of master of rhetoric. I mean, the way you skillfully turned that around on me...I...I stand in awe of your rapier-like wit, and steel-trap mind.Winston Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08780746334199630779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5264937.post-53082398774684462602008-12-02T03:59:00.000-05:002008-12-02T03:59:00.000-05:00What philosophers take YOU seriously?What philosophers take YOU seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com