Stuart Elden wrote:
> On the more substantive point, I can't help thinking that until those in the
> sciences hard and soft realise what Heidegger meant as the difference
> between the ontic and the ontological, and what Foucault suggested between
> connaissance and savoir, and that these are essentially historical
> questions, they are never going to be able to make use of what
> 'philosophers' write.
You may be right. I can't help but get the feeling, when I am talking to one of
them, that I am actually staring down the entrance of an anthill. Nevertheless,
there are less subtle points that can be made. For instance, that there might
be something better for human beings than making them into self-grounded
subjects by way of a pervasive surveillance on one hand, and a pervasive
discourse on "rights" on the other (the subject of a paper I will be giving).
> If that sounds intolerant, perhaps it is. Wynship, you might also want to
> think about what the word 'critique' means. Can you honestly say that Kant's
> three critiques are "Just a critique, no viable proposal. Ultimately,
> therefore, of no consequence"?
It is intolerant, but I too am pushing things to extremes for the sake of a
precussive discussion. Are Kant's three critiques perhaps not critiques? The
trouble is, I can't afford to wait the 200 years needed for philosophical
approaches to become household words, that is to say, consequential.
> On the more substantive point, I can't help thinking that until those in the
> sciences hard and soft realise what Heidegger meant as the difference
> between the ontic and the ontological, and what Foucault suggested between
> connaissance and savoir, and that these are essentially historical
> questions, they are never going to be able to make use of what
> 'philosophers' write.
You may be right. I can't help but get the feeling, when I am talking to one of
them, that I am actually staring down the entrance of an anthill. Nevertheless,
there are less subtle points that can be made. For instance, that there might
be something better for human beings than making them into self-grounded
subjects by way of a pervasive surveillance on one hand, and a pervasive
discourse on "rights" on the other (the subject of a paper I will be giving).
> If that sounds intolerant, perhaps it is. Wynship, you might also want to
> think about what the word 'critique' means. Can you honestly say that Kant's
> three critiques are "Just a critique, no viable proposal. Ultimately,
> therefore, of no consequence"?
It is intolerant, but I too am pushing things to extremes for the sake of a
precussive discussion. Are Kant's three critiques perhaps not critiques? The
trouble is, I can't afford to wait the 200 years needed for philosophical
approaches to become household words, that is to say, consequential.