On Monday, October 16, 2000 6:21 PM zeb haradon firstname.lastname@example.org
> Nice review. I have a similar take on Paglia.
Thanks. It's a bit old -- from 1993; about one fourth of my life ago:) --
so my memory of her work is not that clear.
> You mention Nietzsche and De
> Sade. All three of them, to some extent, "[Tear] apart every scene on the
> human stage...".
I don't think they are really that thorough. Any of them.
> A method for finding truth, shared by the three writers mentioned above:
> Attack every idea held by anyone, try to be random, offensive, and
> provocative, as much as possible (for attention, the joy of offense,
> destruction, revenge at society, or whatever). Use your intelligence and
> literary prowess to its peak to defend even the most absurd hypothesis you
> come up with by this method.
While Paglia seems to do this, I think de Sade and Nietzsche had other
issues. One the latter, he was concerned with the change in moralities from
the Homeric Greeks to the postSocratice and Christian world. I think that
alone brings some sense to his work, though not all that much.
> Just as random genetic mutation results in an occassional brilliant
> phenotype, this method results in an occasional brilliant idea. But, the
> bulk of genetic mutations just result in disease, and the bulk of ideas
> obtained by the above method are garbage (moreso for De Sade and Paglia
> Nietzsche, but he wrote his share of shit as well).
> I've never even tried to read a Paglia book, everything I know about her
> from what I've read on the web.
Your analogy is a good one. I wouldn't say it's totally random, though. I
think they both start with and end with their feelings. They just happen to
be abnormal in respect to the content of their feelings. Nietzsche and
Paglia both lack the ability to argue and reason -- or, at least, to do so
beyond arguing for or reasoning for their particular prejudices and quirks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:17 MDT