I often quote Ellul (possibly incorrectly) when he noted that "trend is not destiny..." to which I add but it is worth looking at trends nonetheless.
arthur -----Original Message----- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:57 AM To: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sartre -- Re: [Futurework] Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism At 22:01 27/07/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Keith Hudson wrote: > >[snip] >>And then, French scholarship and culture is not as cracked up as it's >>supposed to be. The French complain about the heavy dose of American >>films on their TV channels, but where are their own films? As for books, >>the French still have good novelists but where are their books of >>scholarly value? I can't recall a single one in the last 10 or 20 years. >>They are still quoting Sartre and his reprehensible existentialism. >[snip] > >I would nominate Pierre Hadot, for one author, and Jacques Ellul >for another. (I don't read much French stuff.) I think >the film Mon Oncle d'Amerique was 1990. Gerard Despardieu >is, I think, still working his craft. I'll grant you that this is a good film. But it's one of only a dozen or so good films in my lifetime. I've heard of Ellul but have no idea of what he stands for. As for Sartre and his existentialism, it's a good example of the mess that linguistic philosophy gets itself into (and, in particular, French philosophy). The author strikes a pose, and then, because he's good with words, proceeds to spin a mighty web around it with little reference to reality outside it (or what passes for reality via our perceptions, anyway). He despises reason and leaves his disciples in a complete mess unless they parrot his words in scriptural fashion. Sartre was thoroughly irresponsible and unreliable because he had no duty of care towards his readers. Existentialism was pretty well the last throw of intellectual chicanery against scientific methodology. At least Ayer had the honesty to say just before he died that everything he and his contemporary linguistic philosophers had been writing during his lifetime was complete nonsense. Sartre didn't have that sort of honesty. KH >"Sartre and his reprehensible existentialism" -- Please specify >what is REPREHENSIBLE about it. > >\brad mccormick > >-- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > ><![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] >----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
