>
>> From: Kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net>
>> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com, lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>> Subject: Re: Fish weighs in
>> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 23:34:43 -0400
>>
>> At 03:37 PM 10/15/01 -0400, Mina Kumar wrote:
>> It seemed bizarre
>>
>>>> that events so serious would be linked causally with a rarefied form
>>>> of academic talk.
>>>
>>> What a bizarre understanding of the purpose of philosophy.
>>
>> Fish said that he thought it odd that anyone would think an event
>> would be
>> _causally__linked_ to postmodernist relativism--that S11 was something
>> that
>> could put an end to a "rarefied form of academic talk" or, my spin, even
>> signal the end of a "rarefied form of academic talk".
>
> damn, y'all, this one-liner is my most controversial post!
>
> anyway, why is it so bizarre to think that a serious event could
> undermine the credibility of a philosophy?
>
ok, my turn again ;-).
thats not what fish says. that seems to be what the reporter is asking but thats not what fish says in his response. i had brought this up in my earlier post. fish says "It seemed bizarre that events so serious would be linked causally with a rarefied form of academic talk". reading the text further it is clear that when he says "causally linked" he means the cause -> effect to be postmodern theory -> events and response. it seems to me that one may accuse fish of having misunderstood the question, but not of having a bizarre understanding of the purpose of philosophy, at least not based on this particular response.
> far from being bizarre, it
> makes perfect sense to say, hey, here is a serious event, does it do any
> damage to the theor(ies) we are using to understand the world, or do our
> theor(ies) hold up in their ability to offer satisfying (to us!)
> explanations of these events.
indeed thats not bizarre at all. fish's answer is potentially bizarre not in his understanding of the "purpose of philosophy" but in his understanding of the question itself. perhaps fish uses the question as a means to respond to other criticisms, which he outlines: that of commentators who have hinted that postmodern relativism has weakened america to the point of being unable to respond. this claim he finds bizarre.
he then, correctly, goes on to address the ideas of postmodernism in light of the events, thus in a sense swinging around to addressing what is possibly the correct interpretation of the reporter's question.
> and why is he on one hand calling postmodernism a "rarified kind of
> academic talk" i.e. something removed from the public sphere, and then
> saying, oh, no, actually, it's got something very useful to say to the
> general public about how to think about these things.
its kind of like this list, or what someone accused this list of being: its a rarefied kind of academic talk, but its got something very useful to say to the general public (well, i possibly err due to ignorance - possibly great changes in the real world are being achieved through this list and i would be glad if they are). that the general public chooses not to listen is a problem, of course, that needs to be addressed.
--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.