> Mina Kumar wrote:
>
>> Actually I thought Ravi misinterpreted both my and Fish's remarks...
>
>> 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.
>
we used to say on usenet that when a person starts answering his/her own posts its time to stop reading him, so read further at your own risk ;-).
so, i went back and looked at doug henwood's forward of the fish article. it only served to reinforce my interpretation of fish. i quote from the text below:
---------- start quote -------
CHICAGO -- During the interval between the terrorist attacks and the United States response, a reporter called to ask me if the events of Sept. 11 meant the end of postmodernist relativism. It seemed bizarre that events so serious would be linked causally with a rarefied form of academic talk. But in the days that followed, a growing number of commentators played serious variations on the same theme: that the ideas foisted upon us by postmodern intellectuals have weakened the country's resolve. The problem, according to the critics, is that since postmodernists deny the possibility of describing matters of fact objectively, they leave us with no firm basis for either condemning the terrorist attacks or fighting back.
---------- end quote -------
it is clear, at least to me, from the above, that fish believes that commentators have made this connection: postmodern thought has weakened US resolve and that (the weakening) *causes* the US to have no way to condemn or fight back.
fish it seems to me finds it bizarre that a particular very small school of thought can have such a large impact on the nation: weaken its resolve and make it unable to fight back.
then he goes on, it seems to me, to address the correctness of the accusation itself, irrespective of how bizarre it might be. is it (at least) logically valid, he seems to ask, to say that postmodern thought provides no basis for condemning the attack or fighting back? as an outcome of this analysis, he suggests that not only is the theoretical contention unjustified, but in fact, postmodern thought provides us the best basis for response.
i read the reporter's question differently (or choose to) and tend to agree with the reporter. 9/11 and its response indicate an end to any form of toleration of nuanced thinking, whether it be right or wrong.
--ravi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- man is said to be a rational animal. i do not know why he has not been defined as an affective or feeling animal. more often i have seen a cat reason than laugh or weep. perhaps it weeps or laughs inwardly - but then perhaps, also inwardly, the crab resolves equations of the 2nd degree. -- alasdair macintyre.