I totally agree with these words of wisdom. Not because you have to be nice or
creative, but simply because philosophy is dialogue. If you see the meaning of a
text, you also understand that the text is right in some way. This is the
present that's offered to you for free and it's not very meaningfull throw this
away. Criticism is necessary to show the limits of a text, not to try to
withhold other people from reading it. If you're really into the conversion
game, or you have the narcisism of thinking you're mister right, you should join
a sect. Besides that I hate the spirit of heavyness which comes out of many
criticims, there's absolutely no humor in them.
erik
Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wow the idea that my posting "provides hope" sounds rather nice. I
> totally agree with you on the subject of intellectual warfare. As I
> re-read Nietzsche, I am astonished at how BEAUTIFUL his work is. Thus
> Spake Zarathustra is absolutely wonderful. Of course, Nietzsche shot
> a lot of arrows at a lot of other philosophers, but his work is so
> affirming--so beautiful. His ideas bring me hope (something which
> many don't understand, but I imagine you will).
>
> Our conversations on Nussbaum and Cheney are so telling. Now it's a
> matter of, "You're a relativist." "You're a modernist!" "You're a
> Marxist!" Stephen Feldman wrote an article in the Michigan Law Review
> that was highly critical of the Deconstructionist Jack Balkin,
> accusing him of adhering to modernist notions of subjectivty. He then
> proceeded to make a vague reference to the virtues of postmodern
> interpretivism (without even describing the "post-modern" view of
> subjectivity).
>
> Feldman's tactics exemplify the tactics Virilio studies. Feldman is
> highly critical. He is unwilling to reveal the affirmative substance
> of postmodern interpretivism. He attacks, and then the article is
> over. His article boils down to, "Balkin's a modernist and Gadamer is
> afraid," and then he flees into silence. It's like Virilio's
> aesthetic of disappearance.
>
> I wish people with ideas would truly write about them...not merely
> attack anything that does not adhere to them. That's one thing that
> really distinguishes Foucault, Irigay, Butler, Kristeva, Deleuze,
> Guattari, Virilio, and Nietzsche. They write. Who's writing now?
>
> Nathan
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOdGGJWPiNpsHufNqEQJMhwCgyLbGtXa/Lv+DHNjp6ddxAatTpjIAn31l
> g8GX2S3el/+hDfNXcojAwp2a
> =I6uG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
creative, but simply because philosophy is dialogue. If you see the meaning of a
text, you also understand that the text is right in some way. This is the
present that's offered to you for free and it's not very meaningfull throw this
away. Criticism is necessary to show the limits of a text, not to try to
withhold other people from reading it. If you're really into the conversion
game, or you have the narcisism of thinking you're mister right, you should join
a sect. Besides that I hate the spirit of heavyness which comes out of many
criticims, there's absolutely no humor in them.
erik
Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Wow the idea that my posting "provides hope" sounds rather nice. I
> totally agree with you on the subject of intellectual warfare. As I
> re-read Nietzsche, I am astonished at how BEAUTIFUL his work is. Thus
> Spake Zarathustra is absolutely wonderful. Of course, Nietzsche shot
> a lot of arrows at a lot of other philosophers, but his work is so
> affirming--so beautiful. His ideas bring me hope (something which
> many don't understand, but I imagine you will).
>
> Our conversations on Nussbaum and Cheney are so telling. Now it's a
> matter of, "You're a relativist." "You're a modernist!" "You're a
> Marxist!" Stephen Feldman wrote an article in the Michigan Law Review
> that was highly critical of the Deconstructionist Jack Balkin,
> accusing him of adhering to modernist notions of subjectivty. He then
> proceeded to make a vague reference to the virtues of postmodern
> interpretivism (without even describing the "post-modern" view of
> subjectivity).
>
> Feldman's tactics exemplify the tactics Virilio studies. Feldman is
> highly critical. He is unwilling to reveal the affirmative substance
> of postmodern interpretivism. He attacks, and then the article is
> over. His article boils down to, "Balkin's a modernist and Gadamer is
> afraid," and then he flees into silence. It's like Virilio's
> aesthetic of disappearance.
>
> I wish people with ideas would truly write about them...not merely
> attack anything that does not adhere to them. That's one thing that
> really distinguishes Foucault, Irigay, Butler, Kristeva, Deleuze,
> Guattari, Virilio, and Nietzsche. They write. Who's writing now?
>
> Nathan
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOdGGJWPiNpsHufNqEQJMhwCgyLbGtXa/Lv+DHNjp6ddxAatTpjIAn31l
> g8GX2S3el/+hDfNXcojAwp2a
> =I6uG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----