Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: serialization of the group

Expand Messages
  • cepav0
    ... far from seeing Sartre as merely a precursor to structuralism. After all the critiques of structuralism that have made of structuralism by such figures as
    Message 1 of 45 , Aug 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > First of all, to lay out our philosophical differences, I am very
      far from seeing Sartre as merely a precursor to structuralism. After
      all the critiques of structuralism that have made of structuralism by
      such figures as Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, the late Foucault and
      others, Sartre may even be read as being post-structuralist avant la
      lettre.

      Well, I think it is a good thing to have differences, sometimes I
      find some users of this forum think too much alike, to the point that
      their sayings become quite interchangeable, like the serial output of
      a machine.

      Second, dear user (or machine, who knows?), I cant follow you where
      you're going here. It seems like you never read anything, and your
      frame of mind is programmed to jump to the same conclusions, no
      matter what. I didnt say Sartre was a precursor of structuralism, I
      wrote "structuralism" in quotation marks, saying that we conveniently
      group under such heading the different works of very different
      thinkers, at different periods of time. So much so, that our need for
      differentiation doesnt go any further than pre-fixing "structuralism"
      with a "post" for what seems to us to not quite fall under the same
      rubric. It doesnt matter that, as the term clearly indicates, "post-
      structuralism" is then merely "structuralism" AFTER "structuralism".
      ("Do you believe in life after love?"...)
      Hence, it would never cross my mind to call Sartre a precursor
      of "structuralism", and even less, as you do in a nonsensical coinage
      of terms, "post-structuralist avant la lettre", a.k.a "ante-post-
      structuralist"....

      I was simply trying to say that I am rather not interested in
      fleshing out a new conception of history from the Critique, for what
      Sartre does in this book is, in my opinion, the prefiguration of a
      work that much more systematically and radically is going to be done
      by other thinkers. In a metaphorical way, I would say, why go to the
      rehearsal when I can play and replay the show as many times as I want.

      But if your interest is in going back to the Critique to find out a
      new conception of social and historical structures, be my guest. I
      dont know what the results will be, but I can assure you beforehand
      of the originality of your attempt.

      > As far as your second point is concerned, the notion that
      thinking, especially philosophical thinking, has no consequences for
      history, ethics or any other everyday matter seems to me silly at
      best. This is merely another form of the Positivism Sartre critiqued
      so heavily in his writings - that conservative ideology that reduces
      everything back to the status quo and makes the subject into a thing.

      Silly of me, of course, to have thought that. But you cannot, without
      committing a basic logical fallacy, call me both silly and
      positivistic. For positivism is exactly the attempt to catch
      philosophy into the nets of positive sciences, with real and palpable
      applications in everyday life; positivism wants to strike any
      silliness, any madness, any playfull approach, any poetry, whatever
      it judges as "irrational", out of philosophy.

      At the end of my message, I said that what seems as the most
      inconsequential in the domain of thinking may be of the uttermost
      importance, meaning that we cannot judge the historical consequences
      of thinking by resorting to the same cliches as you do, especially in
      the last sentence of your message.

      But, hey, I want at least to deserve the name, and so I'm waiting
      for the POSITIVE results of your research into the Critique. Keep me
      Post-ed...
    • cepav0
      The quote below is pretty clear as to the profound relation between Sartre s philosophy and violence. The cogito, the generalized cogito, is a crime (did I
      Message 45 of 45 , Aug 21, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        The quote below is pretty clear as to the profound relation between
        Sartre's philosophy and violence. The cogito, the generalized cogito,
        is a crime (did I hear Nietzsche somewhere?...):

        La situation veut que la vraie morale humaine prenne naissance dans
        cet acte isolé, purement individuel, de violence purement négative.
        Tentons de le comprendre dans son ambigüité et de légitimer cette
        violence. … en réalisant la liberté terroriste et négative de la pure
        conscience du monde par consomption du monde en face de la
        conscience, l'esclave réalise dans l'instant qui précède la mort
        cette conscience de soi que le stoïcisme, le scepticisme et le doute
        cartésien n'atteignent que dans la fuite et dans l'abstrait. … La
        destruction et le crime sont les conduites concrètes corrélatives du
        doute méthodique. [dans le crime] la conscience s'affirme dans sa
        solitude terroriste. Tout crime est toujours un peu un cogito.
        (Sartre, Cahier 418)

        What the heck, I'm giving it a try at translation:

        "The situation requires that the true human ethics is born out of
        this isolated act [the terrorist one], purely individual, of a purely
        negative violence. Let us try to understand it in its ambiguity and
        to legitimize this violence. ... by accomplishing the terrorist and
        negative freedom of the pure consciousness of the world, the slave
        attains in the instant right before his death to that self-
        consciousness that stoicism, scepticism and cartesian doubt attain to
        only in flight and in the abstract. ... Destruction and crime are the
        concrete behaviour correlative to methodical doubt. [in the crime]
        consciousness affirms itself in its terrorist solitude. All crime is
        always a bit of a cogito."

        Do I agree with this? Oh, not only that, I think these are some of
        the best lines ever writen in philosophy.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.