>
> Actually I thought Ravi misinterpreted both my and Fish's remarks...
>
as i pointed out in my first message, i did not understand your response (and i am sure i am missing something here, for i still dont).
> My point wasn't that philosophy does or doesn't
> influence political life, my point was that any philosophy that is
> divorced from the world of "serious events" isn't much of a philosophy.
its possible i misinterpret fish, but in the article posted to the list he says he finds it bizarre that an esoteric (my word) academic field is causally linked to serious events in the world. i assume he means causally in the direction of academic field -> events in the world. assuming my interpretation of fish is right, i find that not surprising at all. that philosophy should not be divorced from the world of serious events, while correct, is not contradictory with the statement that philosophy need not be causally linked with world events. i too would find it bizarre if someone were to say "postmodernism and philosophical relativism played a causal role in the events of 9/11". i am sure sufficient intellectual effort could establish some kind of tenuous causal link, but abstract philosophy does seem a bizarre place to look for causes.
> In any event, Fish went on to contradict himself by saying that this
> abstruse (or whatever word he used) talk did indeed present the most
> sophisticated (or clearest or whatever word he used) way of
> understanding serious events.
i must confess i remain unclear of the nature of the contradiction. i see a conflict between the reporter's question and fish's answer but i suspect thats because fish divines the motives behind using 9/11 to criticize relativism, but thats just my guess.
i appreciate your attempts at clarification,
--ravi