: Thursday, September 07, 2000 11:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say.
Do you find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W.
Bush? --jks
that have
worked on this type of topic before?
-Nico
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Peter Dorman
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 3:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Re: Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes
So, how did feminism start?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 9:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:1394] Re: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for
Doug
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
I was a professional philosopher of
(How degrading - naïve relativism, sounds harsh. Anyway, you answered that
question yourself with Hume. Realizing that it is all relative does not
preclude the fact that we must walk out of our front doors or wear clothes.
Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment
I agree with Yoshie here, and I d o not think that you believe what you say. Do you
find it hard to pass judgment on Henry Kissinger or George W. Bush? --jks
Understanding that this is relative however makes passing judgment almost
impossible. And I am not talking about the judgment of
Am I right in locating the core error in pomoism (as currently defended)
in its assumption that claims are either "true" or "unjudgeable
opinions"? Such a view excludes the possibility of criteria that would
pass judgment on claims even in the absence of any knowledge that they
are truly "true".
I wasn't picking on Nicole, who is after all a student, but on supposedly professional
scholars in the pomo mode whose analysis is no better. I except some of the big shots:
Derrida, Foucault, DeLeuze, Rorty, etc., are quite sophisticated. Lytoard, however, is
not. --jks
In a message dated
This is what I meant, Doug, when I said that pomoisma encourages bad
epistemology and metaphysics that districts everyone from debating important
substantive issues while failing to advance epistemological or metaphysical
discussion.
And where you are wrong J is that you think academia and the
G'day Justin,
But what is the point of engaging in this exercise? I enjoy an
epistemological dustup as well as any and better than most ... But at the
level at which the present discussion is carried on, the game is not
worth the candle. It's a
distraction.
I don't agree with this, mate. Sure,
Hi Rob ( Doug),
I answered part of your note (with quotes from Doug) below:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Rob Schaap
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Being serious about
Nicole Seibert wrote:
The problem with acting like we
know it all is that people then think we know it all.
Nicole, statements like this just make conversation impossible. No in
the history of the world (except possibly Duhring and Wagner) has
even pretended to "Know it All" -- and if you
Hi Rob -
I agree with your assessment of the middle part I wrote here. I have to
think more about what I am trying to say.
Q: Besides Foucault do any other pomo theorist discuss power relationships?
None right? Baudrillard maybe, but generally in a kind-of snide
anti-powerful way.
Thinking
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RE: Being serious about Pomotismo (with quotes for Doug)
Nicole Seibert wrote:
The problem with acting like we
k
14 matches
Mail list logo
