In a message dated 02/14/2000 9:29:08 AM Eastern Standard Time,
N.E.Widder@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> From the perspective of the first, those who would
> try to establish other conceptions of meaning and relationality not tied to
> identity and opposition are trying to think outside discourse; from the
> perspective of the second, those who insist that meaning must be tied to
> such traditional structures are failing to think through all the
> implications of the deconstruction of these structures
I take up on the phrase, 'to think outside discourse.' It was the
traditionalists who
attempted a metaphysics of subjectivity that analytically related concepts to
each other such that values appeared to be connected to generalizable norms
and maxims, without undergoing any tests by discourse. Exceptions began to
multiply to the principles thus arrived at which were quite logical but which
had not undergone any test of dialogue. When dialogical methods were
employed to check the validity
of the principles, maxims, and general norms, many were found wanting, often
for lack of simple sensibility or reasonability, not to mention practicality.
If there are tqwo sides to this problem, the sides are those of identity
analysts and nonidentity
holists who attempts to relate all perspectives of living individuals
together, not merely subjectivistic hiercharies of metaphysical concepts, as
does the former.
Fred W.
N.E.Widder@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> From the perspective of the first, those who would
> try to establish other conceptions of meaning and relationality not tied to
> identity and opposition are trying to think outside discourse; from the
> perspective of the second, those who insist that meaning must be tied to
> such traditional structures are failing to think through all the
> implications of the deconstruction of these structures
I take up on the phrase, 'to think outside discourse.' It was the
traditionalists who
attempted a metaphysics of subjectivity that analytically related concepts to
each other such that values appeared to be connected to generalizable norms
and maxims, without undergoing any tests by discourse. Exceptions began to
multiply to the principles thus arrived at which were quite logical but which
had not undergone any test of dialogue. When dialogical methods were
employed to check the validity
of the principles, maxims, and general norms, many were found wanting, often
for lack of simple sensibility or reasonability, not to mention practicality.
If there are tqwo sides to this problem, the sides are those of identity
analysts and nonidentity
holists who attempts to relate all perspectives of living individuals
together, not merely subjectivistic hiercharies of metaphysical concepts, as
does the former.
Fred W.