On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, malgosia askanas wrote:
> I personally find it impossible to read Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Husserl, or
> in fact any "systematic" philosophy. I don't think, however, that this is
> a cause for pride: I rather regret this inability on my part. It wouldn't
> occur to me to sub to a Kant, Hegel or Spinoza list and waste people's time
> by insisting on the righteousness of my non-understanding. Why is it
> supposed to be appropriate to engage in this kind of self-satisfied deafness
> on a Foucault list?
>
>
> -malgosia
>
Wether this is substantial or not, I have wondered it too, lately.
riitta
------------------
> I personally find it impossible to read Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Husserl, or
> in fact any "systematic" philosophy. I don't think, however, that this is
> a cause for pride: I rather regret this inability on my part. It wouldn't
> occur to me to sub to a Kant, Hegel or Spinoza list and waste people's time
> by insisting on the righteousness of my non-understanding. Why is it
> supposed to be appropriate to engage in this kind of self-satisfied deafness
> on a Foucault list?
>
>
> -malgosia
>
Wether this is substantial or not, I have wondered it too, lately.
riitta
------------------