>What Justin said a while
>ago is true; I too have seen promising young intellectuals stuck with a
>philosophy that doesn't serve them well. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Lacan, etc.
>are fine philosophers if what they want to do is (a) to make reactionary
>modernism fashionable again or (b) to make liberalism sexy by flirting with
>illiberal philosophy. But what they say they want to do is to be "radical"
>in the left-wing sense. In that case, the philosophy of their choice is
>simply a dead end.
I don't know if it's the case that they say they want to be "radical" in the left-wing sense, so maybe their philosophy is serving them fine from their perspecitve. The question is why do such promising young intellectuals get stuck - as you put it - with this philosophical tradition - a question I'd take folks like Carrol wouldn't even find interesting.
Maybe it's because that tradition can be translated more easily into an individualistic outlook - I don't know, perhaps you've been saying this - or those who aren't inclined to identify themselves with the mainstream/consensus and who aren't inclined to do (a) or (b) see no other options in a leftist waste land, and they are sure as hell not going to identify with the establishment - that would be uncool.
Those who do say they want to be "radical" - for me, this simply means anti-capitalist where the goal is not reformist - and aren't can have the discrepancies pointed out to them, obviously.
Peter