Clifford sez:
> itz so Obvious Nate that Rorty is out of it.
No, not really. I've previously thrashed his public/private distinction on
the list, but I'm not sure why it is "obvious" that he is "out of it." If
you read Rorty against people like Foucault and various contemporary
Heideggerians (I'm thinking in particular of William Spanos), you begin to
take more seriously Foucault's qualifications in "What Is Enlightenment?"
Why don't we treat liberal humanism like a toolbox? I think we'll find a lot
of really useful tools inside.
Can you explain your objections to me, Clifford?
Thanks darl
Nate
> itz so Obvious Nate that Rorty is out of it.
No, not really. I've previously thrashed his public/private distinction on
the list, but I'm not sure why it is "obvious" that he is "out of it." If
you read Rorty against people like Foucault and various contemporary
Heideggerians (I'm thinking in particular of William Spanos), you begin to
take more seriously Foucault's qualifications in "What Is Enlightenment?"
Why don't we treat liberal humanism like a toolbox? I think we'll find a lot
of really useful tools inside.
Can you explain your objections to me, Clifford?
Thanks darl
Nate