signalnoise

Response:

No Dr. Seuss? I'm sorry to hear that. You should read him now that you are an adult and can really appreciate his silliness. Life is such a monstrous weight that at times pure, unadulterated silliness is called for to beat back the beast as it were. Keeps us all from being Puritans (watch out for the fun police).

As for Kant and Hegel: I disagree that Hegel is more critical. While they are both concerned with Truth (and keep in mind, I don't believe either gentleman has an authentic claim to that), Kant's theory at least admits of the difficulty in being able to determine truth. If you ignore the fallacy that is the categorical imperative (and believe me, that's a good thing to do!) you still get the really interesting stuff about never really being able to determine the "essence" of an object, that is the thing in itself. I love the idea that the way we experience something keeps getting in the way of our understanding of the thing in question. If it wasn't for that then we would have no Hume, and Hume's contributions are too important (though that doesn't mean that we have to be empiricists).

Also, keep in mind that this notion of our experience of the "object" as the means of understanding it or "intuiting" it as Bergson might say, has had an enormous impact even on theoretical physics. Think of Bohrs, or better yet, Heisenberg and the uncertaintity principle. Some of what Kant says seems perfectly consistent with Heisenberg's impossibility of actually knowing the thing in itself. There's always something left out of our understanding.

The reason Hegel is dismissed by most decronstructivist critics (not that Kant is too high on their list of luminaries) is not because of his delineation of the dialectic. That is, as you pointed out, a terribly useful critical tool. The problem that I have is the use to which he puts the dialectic as a hierarchical, ontological apparatus. That is, Hegel (like Marx) sees history as a progression, a movement towards some future perfection. I do not believe that history has a focus. Hegel's absolute idealism does not sit well with me. It's like those people who take Darwin and argue (inappropriately) that evolution is a movement from simple to better, when in fact it is only a movement from one form to another, perhaps one more specialized.

Anyway, I hope you don't see this long-winded diatribe as an argument in favor of or against either philosopher. I was merely pointing out one aspect of Kant that really appealed to me. I hope you made it through this post! As for an old tv show that I like -- I really don't watch anything consistently. Whatever I'm in the mood for is what I go for. But when I was a kid, I really liked Benny Hill. I love it when people do atrocious things to what are clearly dummies -- he was always throwing them off of cliffs, or out of windows. The faker it was, the more I enjoyed it.

hello back to you mr. chi-town....
i couldn't make it through your journal entry, conferences make my head hurt

Sounds like it was a pretty good time overall. Hell nothing beats tasting new beers. If only there was a way to get rich tasting beer all day.

I hear Portland is the greatest. We'll have to talk Hegel and Marx one day. I feel you on the jewish question.

Reply:

I see what you mean about Hegel/Marx and the "question." Though for some reason I thought Marx veiwed Christianity as incomplete, or corrupt -- don't know where I got that from.

As for Kant and Hegel, the latter was correct in arguing that the categorical imperative is weak -- it's definitely one of the "lamer" things to come from Kant. But I like the idea of the division between the subject and the object. Probably because I have read too damn much deconstructivism!

If you get a chance, check out my Saturday journal -- you might find it interesting.

Oh, and about the Marx and art connection you mentioned before. Yes, he saw it as a commodity (but then, everything is a commodity when it is part of capital). His ideas about art are not very original, but they are an interesting comment on his views in general.

By the way, have you read Derrida's the Spectres of Marx?

Well, I'm ashamed to admit that I am not very conversant with Marx. Of course I've read some of his stuff, but I don't know his problem with the "jewish question."

However, having said that, I would say that your interpretation seems consistent with the rest of Marx's theories. What must be borne in mind is that Marx is concerned with the whole nature of capital. I don't think he would argue that Judaism is at the heart of the problem (though as I said, I haven't read his argument regarding that). I would think he uses Judaism as an example of a problem, or better yet, a symptom that not only demonstrates but effectuates the ongoing problem with capital. You point this out when you mention his definition of secular Judaism.

Like most people at that time, he was given to defining the world through stereotypes. Isn't that what Nietzshe argued against? You might also notice that many other people felt the same way. Have you ever read Ezra Pound's diatribes against Judaism? Like Marx, he goes well beyond the question of religious beliefs and attributes a whole system of behaviour to a group of people. It's clearly the ravings of a madman, but what Pound (just as Marx) wanted to do was attack the notion of capital as a means of establishing a tyrrany of external object valuation that ignored or trampled on a more human valuation. In Pound's case, it took on the form of an opposition between capitalism for capital's sake, and aesthetics as a defining charactersistic of human and social being.

Anyhow, I've started rambling. I think you are on the right track. As a side note, have you read Marx on art?

Good luck on your paper too. Wish I had something to add to what dietotziet said, but I have this bad habit of falling asleep everytime I pick up Marx. I do seem to remember a professor mentioning something about Marx having come from a family that had some Judiaism in it so maybe his lashing out at jews was a rebelion against his own history. Wouldn't be the first time an author has unwittingly done something like that. I think what I would try to do is separate the religion from the reasons why he thinks judiaism is the problem if that's possible. Just use the steriotypes that he assigns to the jews, but separate them from the idea of what it is to be jewish.

Speaking of the "jewish question" have you seen the movie Max? I keep pushing it on people -- nothing like a little Hilter [sic] to spice things up -- lots a fun, all around.

Longest comment ever, no?

Your liberalism argument might hold true, if:

1.) Children were a part of us
or
2.) Children were property

Weve determined that women have agency over children when the child is a part of the womans body. However, we generally dont encourage women to throttle their children post-partum. Instead, we no longer claim that a child is a part of a womans internal domain. We might claim that this special bond creates a feeling of unity, but it can hardly be more than a feeling.

Nor are children owned by their parents. They are (or will be) ends within themselves. Some common-law might indicate that children are classed more like property than like moral agents, but their wishes are often respected by the courts in custody battles, etc.

In my view, the only interests that deserve moral weight are those of the newborn. Children ought not be playthings to take to the park or show off around the office. Nor should they be objects of codependency.

My ex-girlfriends sister just gave birth to a little boy. During her pregnancy she said, I think having a baby is really going to help me get my life in order. I can be strong when I have to be strong. Im sure of it. I hope she manages the fete, but I certainly wouldnt recommend the means.

I very much disagree about your active involvement argument. Legally, the father is liable for prenatal healthcare, along with child support for the first 18 years of the childs life. I dont have any problem with this, but why should the mother have the right to remove the child from her life whereas the father has no such right? It would be different if adopted children found terrible homes, but most adopted children are better off with their adopted parents than they would be with their biological parents.

I am generally leery of the state taking an active hand in regulating our lives. In this case, the state would be defining a contract between men and women. If women wanted to have children independent of their partners, they would need to sign away their right to child support beyond pre-natal assistance. I know the contract, so defined, sounds threatening but is it not more-fair?

I've been there. My grandfather (a capitalist) brought me into the inner fold by purchasing an entire interview wardrobe before I graduated from college. I've since expanded said wardrobe to my continued chagrin.

What I like about Mens clothing is that we can trade off pretty well. With a couple suits, five shirts, ten ties, some slacks and a sports coat, youve got a years worth of formal wear. It might seem expensive but womens clothing which smacks of professionalism can cost just as much without being reusable and interchangeable.

Having said all of that, I wish we all wore mylar and forgot about it. We are not peacocks. I swear, we are NOT!

What Hegel are you reading? I worked my way through his Philosophy of Right in a political theory seminar when I was in grad school. It was...humbling? Maybe that should be my humbling moment.

i love how all these students and alums have nothing better to get *up in arms* about than their mascot being threatened. wow, it's good to see that universities are still the hotbeds for student activism they once were.

*shakes head*

also: yay reading on weekends, it does just feel yummier

i am with you on that greenspan shit. i love that he is cozing up even more to bush. weak.

Thanks for the comraderie on the school tip.

I wouldn't worry about the social security being cut because all the people that are worth caring for are rich enough to take care of themselves anyway... and we keep getting richer thanks to Bush!

Oh wait...........

I think the real question is: Why are you NOT congratulating my mighty Londoners? Hmm?

Its ok, nothing wrong with a little strange.



[Edited on Feb 25, 2004 8:48PM]