On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 17:41:48 -0400 kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote:
> noper ken, i think butler's right about this. it's only in retrospect that
we create a state of need.
You're kidding right? Is Butler really arguing that we only recognize that we need food after we eat? No. That doesn't make sense. In retrospect we attach meaning, and subjectivize (or desubjectivize) responsibility.
> there is no such thing as "being" or "need" until after language in which we
posit such a thing.
So there is a blank slate and everything is socialized? Isn't that a bit old school?
don't make me cut you a new undergrowth of enjoyment!
ken