on 2/3/01 3:59 AM, Bryan C at kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I think these are fair deffinitions, although I could be wrong.
>
>> 1. polemicist (used by Faucalt in his 1984 interview with Rabinow)
>
> Someone who attacks arguments gratuitously without advocating an attack-
> able position.
>
Someone who engages in debate/argument over discussion. Polemics would be
debate/argument.
>> 2. normativity (used in someone's recent post to this list)
>
> Universal language, terms such as justice, freedom etc.
>
> These are probably a little off or only cover part of the term.
> Will some one please explain it better?
An framework for making normative claims.
Normative claims are claims that make judgements/value claims - ie something
_should_ be like ... vs. something _is_ ...
Values such as justice and freedom are inherently normative as they are
based upon certain societal interpretations of what it means to be free/just
- so Bryan is not wrong, but perhaps a bit too specific.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> I think these are fair deffinitions, although I could be wrong.
>
>> 1. polemicist (used by Faucalt in his 1984 interview with Rabinow)
>
> Someone who attacks arguments gratuitously without advocating an attack-
> able position.
>
Someone who engages in debate/argument over discussion. Polemics would be
debate/argument.
>> 2. normativity (used in someone's recent post to this list)
>
> Universal language, terms such as justice, freedom etc.
>
> These are probably a little off or only cover part of the term.
> Will some one please explain it better?
An framework for making normative claims.
Normative claims are claims that make judgements/value claims - ie something
_should_ be like ... vs. something _is_ ...
Values such as justice and freedom are inherently normative as they are
based upon certain societal interpretations of what it means to be free/just
- so Bryan is not wrong, but perhaps a bit too specific.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004