This is being cross-posted in the interest seeking out as many interested
parties as possible. Originally, it was a post sent to the Bataille list.
-DS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>===== Original Message From bataille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx =====
>Hey.
>I wonder if anybody has any thoughts about the "inner" experience to
>Bataille and the "inner" mind to Descartes: thinking here about the strange
>dilemma between transgressing the limits set by "rationality", but still
>maintaining the "rationality" to be able to experience the transgression.
>
>
>Cheers
>Einar
---------------------------
Actually, it is entirely unclear to me that any such thing is possible.
As I understand it, the limits of rationality are the limits of
intelligibility and the limits of logical possibility. To violate them is
to abandon the very business of sense-making, to say nothing of
truth-tracking. Therefore, to "transgress" rationality is just to utter
either:
(1) supervacuous (and ultimately meaningless) rubbish, or;
(2) a demonstrably false set of propositions (i.e. propositions
that are either logically false or else mutually
contradictory)
Is there a third alternative I'm missing? Honestly, I'm just not aware of
any....
I joined this list just a few days ago for this very purpose-- I very much
want to know why postmodernists are postmodernists and why they reject the
obvious criticisms of their views. I have similar interests in coming to
understand the "poststructuralists"/deconstructionists. Lately I've been
going through _Simulation and Simulacra_ and _The Postmodern Condition_,
plus I'm re-reading _Of Grammatology_ (when I find time).<<1>> Thus far I
have not found any plausible arguments for these philosophers' central
claims. Derrida came just short of providing phenomenological arguments
for his antipathy toward Western metaphysics in a few of his earliest
papers found in _Writing and Difference_ and _Margins of Philosophy_, but
even there he fell short as far as I can tell.
Can anyone *PLEASE* help me?? I'm familiar with the varieties of
argument-types that someone might make, but neither Lyotard nor
Baudrillard seem to provide anything that fits any of those categories.
To help people see where I am at this point, I'll list them:
(1) deductive arguments
(a) Kantian/Hegelian transcendental arguments
(b) arguments from definition/linguistic meaning
(c) mathematical arguments
(2) inductive arguments
(a) predictions ---___
(b) retrodictions ___}-- causal inferences
(c) analogical arguments
(d) arguments from authority (can't imagine why they'd use
one of these, though)
(e) inductive generalizations
(f) statistical arguments
(g) etymological arguments
(3) phenomenological arguments
(a) Husserlian transcendetal-phenomenological arguments
(b) Heideggerian phenomenological arguments
Seriously--- I am *NOT* trying to be combative or dismissive, here. I am
trying to understand. I really do want to understand
(1) why Bataille, Baudrillard and Lyotard believe what they certainly
seem to believe
(2) precisely *what* it is that they honestly do believe, and
(3) why they set about trying to make their case the way they do.
The fear of Enlightenment era philosophy that they and their ilk evince
perplexes me to no end.<<2>>
Do they have compelling arguments for why Enlightenment philosophy is such a
terrible thing and/or for why the laws of reason are anything other than
universally applicable and binding? After all, their critics have what seem
like *very* compelling arguments for why their claims are either demonstrably
false or else merely vacuous and therefore (dommage) philosophically
insignificant.<<3>> If postmodernism is to survive on any academically
significant level, these critics must be answered and they must be answered
with very specific and carefully reasoned responses to their specific critical
arguments. Are such responses out there or in the works? Might we, as
members of this list, pool our collective resources, so to speak, and start
formulating such responses?
Many people I know are already convinced that postmodernism is dead. I am not
prepared to go that far just yet, but I have to admit the situation looks dire
these days. If anyone else on the list has the time and is willing to share
in the work, I would love to examine the options and see whether or not there
are any plausible lines of argument whereby something like postmodernism might
survive.
Sincerely,
David Schenk
Notes
-----
<<1>> Over the years I've read quite a bit of Derrida in connection with
my strong interest in Heidegger's philosophy. I've read a decent
amount of Lyotard, but am just getting moving with Baudrillard and
Bataille now. I know the likes of Gramscii, Adorno and the
Frankfurt school tolerably well, but am no kind of expert, plus I
went through a fair number of Foucault's books years ago. I hope
this information can people on the list get a feel for where I am in
my grasp of the relevant material and suggest possible readings to
fill whatever philosophical lacunae are preventing me from properly
understanding the basic arguments of postmodernism.
<<2>> I mean, if they were serious about their skeptical conclusions
regarding reference and semantic content (the existence of a
"signified" and the process of "signification" as such), they could
not ever establish any kind of epistemological vantage-point from
which they would be able or qualified to criticize the laws of
Reason, Enlightenment philosophy, Platonic realism, transcendetal
philosophy, the concepts of truth and reality, or much of anything
else. Therefore, it seems they cannot *really* be the skeptics they
pretend to be.
<<3>> Philip Kitcher and Paul Boghossian do what looks like a very good
job of this in _A House Built On Sand_. I found similarly nasty
arguments in Sokal and Bricmont's _Fashionable Nonsense_ and, of
course, Gross and Levitt's _Higher Superstition_. Even Al Plantinga
gives postmodernism what-for in _Warranted Christian Belief_. These
philosophers seem to make a good case and I doubt the Stanley Fish's
of this world could ever stand up to them. Am I missing
something??? Have these people misconstrued postmodernism, and if
so, _how_? I *DO* *NOT* want to sell the postmodernists short,
here. I honestly do want to give them a fair shot at making their
case and to that end I fully intend to employ the principle of
charity as best I can.