I haven't read Heidegger for a decade, and may not for another. I'm a positivist-influenced neopragamatist scientific realist, trained as an analytical philosopher, and much more likely to turn to Pierce than to Heidegger. Humanities "theory" drives me bats, and as a model for literary style I prefer Russell, Ryle, or Carl Hempel. However, thinking seriously about anything is likely to be baffling, so there you are.
--jks
>
>I really don't care if you guys read Heiddeger's
>later works on metaphysics and technology for the
>"poetry." . . .
>In the last six months, rereading the pragmatist
>philosophical essays of Charles Sanders Pierce
>(he's not German or French or English, by the way,
>although that is really neither here nor there)
>has been helpful. I find him much more congenial
>as a philosophical thinker and writer than the
>decons.
>
>I probably had enough of the humanties theory
>binge of the eighties (early eighties in my case)
>when I went to school at the west coast
>headquarters of the deconstructionist mafia. The
>Derrida worship was rank. . . . I just refuse to write like a
>deconstructionist or Jean Baudrillard. You can
>chide and chastise me all you want, but it won't
>happen. Why would I want to baffle myself?
>
>. . . You guys know any good books written recently
>about union activity?
>
>Peter Kosenko
>
>
>
>
>=============================================================
>Peter Kosenko
>Email: mailto:kosenko at netwood.net
>URL: http://www.netwood.net/~kosenko
>=============================================================
>"Man is a rational animal. He can think up a
>reason for anything he wants to
>believe."--Benjamin Franklin
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com