I have worked through Rorty's recent work, taught HIS stuff, read West, also Nancy Fraser, Iris Young, Martha Minow. these last three writers I think are quite good. I have read a lot of Jameson on pomo, as well as a few books by critics--Callinicos, Christopher Norris.
The long and short of it is that I think I've read enough to say without being ignorant about it that there's not much there there.
Now, have _you_ worked through _my_ canon with anything like the effort I gave to yours? Can you really say that you have made a reasonable effort to think through a significant subset of G.A. Cohen, John Roemer, Jon Elster, Adam Pzrzworski, Philip van Parijs Erik Wright, Andrew Levine, David Schweickart, Kai Neilsen, John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin, Rodney Peffer, Milton Fisk, and the like? (I am leaving out the lawyers, that would be unfair to ask whether you've read them). And if not,why not? Did you determine that there wasn't much there without bothering to read it? have you even _heard_ of all of these people? Don't condescend to me. You haven't the right.
--jks
In a message dated Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:29:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> writes:
> rc-am wrote:
>
> >Justin wrote:
> >
> > >I haven't read that much pomo because I find it irritating and
> >unproductive.
> >
> >and then:
> >
> > >Pomists do not for the most part have a clue what an argument is.
> >
> >Presumably "for the most part" would include having read widely enough to
> >make the assertion that 'they' "don't have a clue what an argument is."
>
> Or to quote the other Marx, the one with all the brothers - "Whatever
> it is, I'm against it."
>
> Doug