From: Asher Haig <ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 14:35:09 -0500
on 5/21/00 9:31 AM, JBCM2@xxxxxxx at JBCM2@xxxxxxx wrote:
> <<Such a reading, however, comes from a misinterpretation of what the
> statement "there is no truth" means. Rather than saying that "Truth" does
> not exist, it points out that "Truth" does not exist independent of its
> construction in terms of knowledge.>>
> that is, within a system of thought. the key word here is "system", wouldn't
> you agree? if so, it doesn't appear that if one questions the postmodern
> "system of non-verification" by employing the same logical structures that
> inform this system, that one is somehow employing circular reasoning;
> wouldn't you agree that to make such a claim would seem to exempt the
> postmodern critique from the very restriction that Asher assigned to all
> systems of verification?
No. The point is not that there is a good discourse that we can refer to.
Post-Modernism is by no means exempt from critique.
"My point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous,
which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we
always have something to do." - Foucault
Any ideology can be used to negative ends. That's not the point.
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004