On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Sam Pawlett wrote:
> His whole, project, as I read it, is to dethrone academic
> philosophy making it a part of the English or Humanities department.I hope
> the heavyweights on this list correct me if I'm wrong.
You asked for the "heavyweights" response, but I'm going to ignore that and respond . No, I don't think he quite wants to dethrone academic philosophy and make it part of the humanities. He *does* wish that analytic philosophy would release its hold on philos. depts. They've taken philosophy, which used to have inspirational and prophetic value (Mind you: I am channeling Rorty right now--this does not necessarily reflect my personal opinions, although it might)) and made it into tedious, nitpicky, technical, petty arguments about word usage. He worries that theory might do the same to english depts. Now, he *does* suggest that novelists and journalists write about ethical issues better than philosophers. And, since literary theorists rather than philosopers read more novels, and therefore come across more ethical systems & conflicts than do philosophers, they might be better suited to "doing ethics."
For the stuff on analytic philos. see the last chapter in *AChieving Our Country*, For the stuff on literature, see *Contingency, Irony, & Solidarity*--can't remember the chapter.
frances