[lbo-talk] do people sill read post-structuralism

[Chris Doss]

I'm not going to have this silly argument again. However, whatever influence he had on you is not important, because you are not a trained philosopher any more than you are a climatologist, and therefore understand Heidegger no better than you understand climate change, i.e., not at all. It's not ME who has a hard-on for Heidegger; it's trained philosophers as a class, that is, the class of people who know what they are talking about, of which you are not a member.

----- Original Message ----
From: James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk>

We get it Chris, you have a hard-on for the Nazi in the lederhosen, chopping logs in the cabin in the woods. To me, it was like learning to speak Chinese, and never going to China. He was an influence, a negative one. His  dismantling of the rationalist tradition was a dead-end whose only virtue was to create a private language so that initiates could recognise one another - rather like the fans of Tolkein or World of Warfare. Speaking Heideggerian reminded me most of Edwin Abbott's fable Flatland, set in a world of two dimensions. The hero, finding himself incapable of explaining what objects with mass are, spots a sphere passing through flatland, and calls to his hosts, look, a sphere! They look at him quizzically and explain that they just saw a small point expand into a large circle and then shrink down again to a point.