> I guess I sounded snottier than I meant to be with my 'originality'
> aside; I like a lot of pomo stuff, Butler especially, but I hate the
way
> some of her fans overemphasize the originality of her analyses
much of that touting of originality comes, as you say, from readers and not from the writers themselves. but it's also connected to the accusation that pomo is 'not really post anything'. the pretense to originality might be absent from the writers themselves, but the 'post' thing kind of muddies the waters, especially for anyone who might want to read that as a claim of succession, beyond-ness... which, of course, it isn't.
> True, I'm no Zizek scholar. But isn't N's stuff on the multiplicity
> of subject and will related to Zizek's perspective?
i'm no zizek scholar either, but i've read some of his stuff. i'm not sure what you mean by multiplicity of subjectivity, but zizek works from the freudian presumption of division and absence as the precondition of subjectivity, the subject is always split, etc. and since i'm no nitchy scholar either, i'll hazard that this is quite different to his version of subjectivity as will. i don't think zizek ever talks about will, but ken would probably know better than i.
> What does Z think of Fred?
if i recollect rightly he associates him (wrongly i think) with a deconstructivist position which, according to z, reduces truth to a textual effect. the judgement isn't a favourable one. z thinks that truth exists as more than textual, performative effect -- which d does as well, but that's another story.
> And lastly, who brought up nihilism? I don't consider anybody
> mentioned above a nihilist. Or is anyone that interrogates realist
> philosophical assumptions a nihilist?
no, not at all. i was perusing the posts in the thread and i think someone's comment stuck, looking for an outlet, so it went in here. i was going to suggest that nitchy was really quite an ethicist, but that thought went elsewhere.
Angela _________