Hagen wrote:
> Grant you there is probably no harm in
> such inquiry, however, what impressed me was the non-rational / non-analytic
> flavor of his comment. He states quite clearly that he does not seek
> deductive systems or strategies in his work. Instead he probes not really
> knowing where he will end up or how those conclusions will affect his
> understanding of himself and his world. It seems to me that the desire "not
> to think the same thing as before" is motivated by the simple pleasure of
> discovery versus an implicit political agenda or social duty.
But he is talking about what motivates his _writing_, which is, arguably,
his central occupation. It seems to me that to be centrally and admittedly
motivated by the pleasure of discovery per se is (especially for a political
thinker) very much a political stance, and it is potentially interesting
to contemplate this stance vis-a-vis such notions as "agenda" and "duty".
I think we are also implicitly discussing the notion of "discovery":
what is it that is being discovered? Is there something out there to
be discovered, and the pleasure is in the grasping of this thing?
Is the pleasure simply a curious physiological phenomenon?
You are implyig that to discuss these things is to "rationalize" or
"deductivize" them. To me, this is far from clear. To discuss is to probe,
to experiment. The probing can go in all kinds of directions and use
all kinds of tools and methods.
> I am just getting caught up on this thread, and although I have
> found the comments interesting it seems to me that there is at least a risk
> of over- analysis.
I submit to you that we, too, may be trying to not think the same
thing as before, and that this is an important purpose of discussion.
If so, then over-analysis would only occur when so much has been said,
or with such "authority", that nothing new could arise.
-malgosia
------------------
> Grant you there is probably no harm in
> such inquiry, however, what impressed me was the non-rational / non-analytic
> flavor of his comment. He states quite clearly that he does not seek
> deductive systems or strategies in his work. Instead he probes not really
> knowing where he will end up or how those conclusions will affect his
> understanding of himself and his world. It seems to me that the desire "not
> to think the same thing as before" is motivated by the simple pleasure of
> discovery versus an implicit political agenda or social duty.
But he is talking about what motivates his _writing_, which is, arguably,
his central occupation. It seems to me that to be centrally and admittedly
motivated by the pleasure of discovery per se is (especially for a political
thinker) very much a political stance, and it is potentially interesting
to contemplate this stance vis-a-vis such notions as "agenda" and "duty".
I think we are also implicitly discussing the notion of "discovery":
what is it that is being discovered? Is there something out there to
be discovered, and the pleasure is in the grasping of this thing?
Is the pleasure simply a curious physiological phenomenon?
You are implyig that to discuss these things is to "rationalize" or
"deductivize" them. To me, this is far from clear. To discuss is to probe,
to experiment. The probing can go in all kinds of directions and use
all kinds of tools and methods.
> I am just getting caught up on this thread, and although I have
> found the comments interesting it seems to me that there is at least a risk
> of over- analysis.
I submit to you that we, too, may be trying to not think the same
thing as before, and that this is an important purpose of discussion.
If so, then over-analysis would only occur when so much has been said,
or with such "authority", that nothing new could arise.
-malgosia
------------------