How's his prostate ;-)? No, serious, it seems to me that he's loosing
the inventiveness to use others thoughts, which to me is one of the most
essential capabilities a philospher needs.
erik
Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> So Rorty says he became too "disaffected" to keep teaching Foucault. He
> thinks Foucault is "politically useless." He agrees with me that Alan Sokal
> is an idiot and that Douglas Kellner maybe isn't qualified to write the
> books he's writing. He thinks Lacan's project is kind of worthless, and
> isn't too into Kristeva or Deleuze and Guattari. He didn't disagree with me
> that Nussbaum is crap. He's pro-choice.
>
> ~Nate
>
> --
>
> "The living body is a loving body, and the loving
> body is a speaking body. Without love we are nothing
> but walking corpses. Love is essential to the living
> body, and it is essential in bringing the living
> body to life in language." ~Kelly Oliver
>
>
>
the inventiveness to use others thoughts, which to me is one of the most
essential capabilities a philospher needs.
erik
Nathan Goralnik wrote:
> So Rorty says he became too "disaffected" to keep teaching Foucault. He
> thinks Foucault is "politically useless." He agrees with me that Alan Sokal
> is an idiot and that Douglas Kellner maybe isn't qualified to write the
> books he's writing. He thinks Lacan's project is kind of worthless, and
> isn't too into Kristeva or Deleuze and Guattari. He didn't disagree with me
> that Nussbaum is crap. He's pro-choice.
>
> ~Nate
>
> --
>
> "The living body is a loving body, and the loving
> body is a speaking body. Without love we are nothing
> but walking corpses. Love is essential to the living
> body, and it is essential in bringing the living
> body to life in language." ~Kelly Oliver
>
>
>