Littleton: it's Adorno's fault

curtiss_leung at ibi.com curtiss_leung at ibi.com
Sat Oct 2 14:07:42 PDT 1999


Hi Yoshie:

> Why not follow your "slight embarrassment" to its logical

> conclusion? You actually don't think that "Freud's version of the

> mind and its drives" is correct, do you? Have you read _Inventing

> the Psychological: Toward a Cultural History of Emotional Life in

> America_, eds. Joel Pfister & Nancy Schnog (New Haven: Yale UP,

> 1998), for instance? You might find the book interesting.

>

Thanks for the citation; I'll chase it up. I don't whether or not

Freud's account is anything close to correct, although his terms do

seem silly, so my embarrassment came from dredging up these silly

terms to defend Adorno -- a thinker I obviously like -- on what's

obviously one of his weaker points.

This makes me curious about a general question, though. Are theories

of mind always suspect if they lack an historical element? I may be

opening up a very ugly can of worms, but what does this mean for

Chomsky's ideas about the innateness of language? I know this is

quite a swerve away from the original topic, but...

--

Curtiss



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list