From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 23:15:17 MDT
Damien writes
> At 02:39 PM 5/31/03 -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> >I was television baby, and so many of the
> >19th century type sentences uttered by writers of the latter
> >century don't stick will enough in my short term memory to
> >enable me to follow them very well.
>
> Ha! Try Hegel or Kant! Here's an interesting attempt to justify Hegel's
> porridge (from Judith P. Butler, *Subjects of Desire. Hegelian Reflections
> in Twentieth-Century France*, Columbia University Press, 1987)...
Well, interesting to you, perhaps ;-) The crucial point, of
course, is that in the final analysis Hayek *does* make sense,
it's just a little... difficult.
But you have waded deep into the waters of post-modern structuralism
or post-structural modernism, or modern post-structuralism, or whatever
it is. Was. Moreover, you have seemed to emerge from this quest with
your mind and rationality more or less intact. So the ultimate question
that must be asked of you, is, how did you ever determine that it wasn't
all one glorious Waste of Time?
Once at university, I chanced (while heading down the wrong
corridor in the library) upon a huge fat volume entitled "Being
and Time", or "Time and Nothingness", or something like that,
written by one of the usual suspects Sartre or Heidegger.
I took it over to a table and sat down. The next thing
that I remember is that the book was back at its place on
the shelf, and that I had a splitting headache. I even
stayed away from that part of the library henceforth.
I am sure that the prejudice so gained is, was, logically
unfounded. But you evidently escaped a similar fate at
an impressionable age. I wonder how.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 23:25:59 MDT