On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 20:09:20 -0700, Dave Roberts wrote:
>Derrida. The people who study him do not agree
>what he means.
This is the traditional definition of a classic:
a book that future generations never stop excavating and finding new
meanings in. By the way, do scholars today agree on what Plato meant,
how about Kant? Is there one serious thinker on the meaning of whose
work there is consensus.
Past philosophers did not assume that the customer was always right. This is
one reason to read them. If the thought of another does not give you any challenge,
why bother read it. Why do you think that the same literacy gives you the ability to read
and make sense of 'the New York Post' and 'Philosophical Investigations.' Wouldn't it
be surpsising if it were true? Can you understand articles published on Quantum
mechanics? You wouldn't even dare to suggest that it is worthless just because a lay person
cannot make sense of it without years of training. Why do you think the subject of Wittgenstein's
work is any less difficult? Isn't it part of a general contemporary scientism that sees study in the
'humanities' as necessarily trivial?
BTW, Nietzsche was as concerned as you are with creating a philosophy that will be part of a good
education, see his essays, 'on the future of our educational institutions' and 'schopenhauer as educator'.
BTW, I really find it amusing that you discard Foucault's ethics by accusing him
of murder and then you go on to draw on the moral musings of Alexander the Great,
one of the greatest butchers in history. I hope this is a case of very subtle irony.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------
>Derrida. The people who study him do not agree
>what he means.
This is the traditional definition of a classic:
a book that future generations never stop excavating and finding new
meanings in. By the way, do scholars today agree on what Plato meant,
how about Kant? Is there one serious thinker on the meaning of whose
work there is consensus.
Past philosophers did not assume that the customer was always right. This is
one reason to read them. If the thought of another does not give you any challenge,
why bother read it. Why do you think that the same literacy gives you the ability to read
and make sense of 'the New York Post' and 'Philosophical Investigations.' Wouldn't it
be surpsising if it were true? Can you understand articles published on Quantum
mechanics? You wouldn't even dare to suggest that it is worthless just because a lay person
cannot make sense of it without years of training. Why do you think the subject of Wittgenstein's
work is any less difficult? Isn't it part of a general contemporary scientism that sees study in the
'humanities' as necessarily trivial?
BTW, Nietzsche was as concerned as you are with creating a philosophy that will be part of a good
education, see his essays, 'on the future of our educational institutions' and 'schopenhauer as educator'.
BTW, I really find it amusing that you discard Foucault's ethics by accusing him
of murder and then you go on to draw on the moral musings of Alexander the Great,
one of the greatest butchers in history. I hope this is a case of very subtle irony.
-------------
Gabriel Ash
Notre-Dame
-------------