At 2:42 PM -0500 3/5/97, John Ransom wrote:
>No, I don't think we can have or should try to establish a "standard."
>Don't look for philosophy to do this kind of thing for you. Philosophy
>can, I think, be a resource, like lots of other resources. We decide what
>to oppose. Or: parts of us decide, often against the interests and desires
>of other parts of us, to oppose something.
...and...
At 4:01 PM +1300 3/6/97, Campbell Jones wrote:
>Who defines standards of sloppiness? And how does such standards function?
So much of this reminds me of the early undergraduate discovery of
relativism carried out to the postdoctoral level.
Of course "philosophy" can't define a standard; philosophy is a corpus of
texts that often contradict or talk past each other. But as human beings we
have to come to some sort of ethical/moral conclusions, don't we? Why is it
that, say, sloppy scholarship is an acceptable form of transgression while
infant sacrifice isn't? Why is it that Foucault's sloppy scholarship - and
even many Foucault fans concede this, Malgosia, but excuse it in the name
of "theatricality" or "higher" quasi-truths - would be acceptable but, say,
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't? There must be some
unacknowledged set of "standards" behind this.
Later, John Ransom says:
>You may decide to dismiss Foucault's approach, but here, at least, is what
>he says, with reference to the Soviet gulag:
>
> [We should refuse] to adopt for the critique of the Gulag a law or
> principle of selection internal to our own discourse or dream.
> By this I mean giving up the politics of inverted commas, not
> attempting to evade the problem by putting inverted commas,
> whether damning or ironic, round Soviet socialism in order to
> protect the good, true socialism -- with no inverted commas --
> which alone can provide a legitimate standpoint for a politically
> valid critique of the Gulag.
Ah yes, this appalling passage. How interesting that a writer of the 1960s
who embraced some of the most extreme forms of heads-on-sticks French
Maoism should adopt this chic neoconservatism in the 1970s. This passage is
almost indistinguishable (in content, not style) from something of Irving
Kristol's or Hilton Kramer's. Political principles and/or ethical standards
lead straight to the gulag. The dream of social transformation must be
dropped - apparently there's some standard, arrived at by some
unacknowledged process, that tells us gulags are bad - in favor
of...transgressive practices?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>No, I don't think we can have or should try to establish a "standard."
>Don't look for philosophy to do this kind of thing for you. Philosophy
>can, I think, be a resource, like lots of other resources. We decide what
>to oppose. Or: parts of us decide, often against the interests and desires
>of other parts of us, to oppose something.
...and...
At 4:01 PM +1300 3/6/97, Campbell Jones wrote:
>Who defines standards of sloppiness? And how does such standards function?
So much of this reminds me of the early undergraduate discovery of
relativism carried out to the postdoctoral level.
Of course "philosophy" can't define a standard; philosophy is a corpus of
texts that often contradict or talk past each other. But as human beings we
have to come to some sort of ethical/moral conclusions, don't we? Why is it
that, say, sloppy scholarship is an acceptable form of transgression while
infant sacrifice isn't? Why is it that Foucault's sloppy scholarship - and
even many Foucault fans concede this, Malgosia, but excuse it in the name
of "theatricality" or "higher" quasi-truths - would be acceptable but, say,
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn't? There must be some
unacknowledged set of "standards" behind this.
Later, John Ransom says:
>You may decide to dismiss Foucault's approach, but here, at least, is what
>he says, with reference to the Soviet gulag:
>
> [We should refuse] to adopt for the critique of the Gulag a law or
> principle of selection internal to our own discourse or dream.
> By this I mean giving up the politics of inverted commas, not
> attempting to evade the problem by putting inverted commas,
> whether damning or ironic, round Soviet socialism in order to
> protect the good, true socialism -- with no inverted commas --
> which alone can provide a legitimate standpoint for a politically
> valid critique of the Gulag.
Ah yes, this appalling passage. How interesting that a writer of the 1960s
who embraced some of the most extreme forms of heads-on-sticks French
Maoism should adopt this chic neoconservatism in the 1970s. This passage is
almost indistinguishable (in content, not style) from something of Irving
Kristol's or Hilton Kramer's. Political principles and/or ethical standards
lead straight to the gulag. The dream of social transformation must be
dropped - apparently there's some standard, arrived at by some
unacknowledged process, that tells us gulags are bad - in favor
of...transgressive practices?
Doug
--
Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217 USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <mailto:dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>