Kafka
redflag
Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
his work? I have yet to form an opinion about this question so please,
feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
samuel m hutcheson
redflag <red...@rbellsouth.net> wrote:
check out _toward a minor literature_, deleuze/guattari. brilliant
book, really.
s.
Unknown
[redflag <red...@rbellsouth.net> writes: > Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
[> feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
Kafka expresses ennui and alienation combined with an ironic wit.
Many artists anticipate movements of the future but, more often,
provide a conceptual basis for these movements. Fin de siecle decadence
exacerbated by the military gloom and gaiety of Franz Joseph's Vienna
provided the tormenting dreamscape. Somewhere nearby, Freud was dreaming
"rational" dreams to rival the protean but sweaty thoughts of Marx.
The time for the concept of the unconscious had arrived.
Kafka's work is Post Modern in that he creates worlds which do not
make sense. Around the same time, the Surrealists applied unmeaning
to painting, poetry and other forms of art. Magrite and Kafka emit a
similar feeling tone of paranoia and despair while retaining that
semblence of reality which becomes the inescapably real. Their purpose
was to reveal the terror and meaninglessness of the here and now by exposing
the comforting theatre which is regarded by the sane person as reality.
What if I were to become a beetle, or a dog, or a prisoner: how would
I feel? How would I behave?
All this was in aid of art and differs little from the drug induced
insanities of Edgar Allen Poe. The deliberate mixing of dream and
reality (assuming that the differences is recognised) is different
from treating every experience as of equal(zero) value, which I take to
be a Post Modern characteristic. Kafka as an artist sought out the
alien and the disturbing in order to get to the bottom of reality,
to expose his personal truth about it, even to become one with the
inescapable "nausee". The Post Modern person would view this kind of
integrity as passe' and be incapable of grasping anything to put in
the existential "epoche" because the PM straitjacket is seamless and
has no pockets.
Nietzsche7
<<
>Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
>his work? I have yet to form an opinion about this question so please,
>feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
>>
Kafka is CERTAINLY not postmodernist. As I typically view modernism and
postmodernism (this will be explained), I would rank Kafka as a modernist.
Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a world
of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
meaning.
Postmodernism seems to stand in stauch opposition to such ideas. I would rank
Sontag as a postmodernist, and therefore, use her work "Against Interpretation"
as a basis for this, as well as Derrida's views of semantics (the gap between
the signifier and the signified, as well as the endless chain of metaphors, and
our dependance upon them). For postmodernists, language cannot convey truth,
and any attempt at symbolism or some form of hidden meaning would end up (for
them) to be ultimately ambiguous, and really not convey anything. Once again
using Sontagian view, postmodernism would favor style over content, and move
away from things like symbolism.
Where does kafka stand in all these literary genres? Kafka explictly stated
in his journals that he wished to raise the world to "the true and the
immutable" realm. Also, as has been acknowledged by many scholars, Kafka shows
an affinity for the themes of the existentialists in dealing with themes like
guilt, futility, suffering, and despair.
Feel free to critique this...I'm sure it's not perfect.
you new newsgroupie,
Adam
Lee Goddard Collective
On 24 Jun 1998 23:45:10 GMT nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) posted article
<199806242345...@ladder03.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
> <<
> >Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
> >his work? I have yet to form an opinion about this question so please,
> >feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
> >>
> Kafka is CERTAINLY not postmodernist. As I typically view modernism and
> postmodernism (this will be explained), I would rank Kafka as a modernist.
> Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a world
> of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
> meaning.
So your Modernism began when? 1450? 1200? 80 CE? 200 BCE?
Modernism shmodernism.
Omar Haneef
Nietzsche7 (nietz...@aol.com) wrote:
[snip]
: Kafka is CERTAINLY not postmodernist. As I typically view modernism and
: postmodernism (this will be explained), I would rank Kafka as a modernist.
: Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a world
: of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
: meaning.
[snip]
: Also, as has been acknowledged by many scholars, Kafka shows
: an affinity for the themes of the existentialists in dealing with themes like
: guilt, futility, suffering, and despair.
"Guilt, futility, suffering, and despair" is, you will concede, not
quite the same thing as "truth and perfection".
: Feel free to critique this...I'm sure it's not perfect.
? Was there ever any danger?
-O
(The Left Rev.) John Konopak
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> Nietzsche7 (nietz...@aol.com) wrote:
> [...]
>
> : I would rank Kafka as a modernist.
> : Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a world
> : of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
> : meaning.
>
>
> smw
Hi Silke--
Yup, some; both in English and in German. I think Kafka's a (very dark)
comedian.
I don't know the exact epistemological place of "irony" and/or "satire"
in the critiques of modernism, but that is what, imo, Kafka does
peerlessly: satirizes and criticizes ironically the throes of the
diseased decline of the Hapsburgs. In Prague acoupla years ago, I had a
minor epiphany reading The Kastle, under the shadow of Hrdcany. I think
one has to be aware of the sheer inhuman SCOPE of the Austro- Hungarian
milieu to understand Kafka.
To the extent that the decline he catalogues is pre-modern, he's a
modernist, in the way their fall brings down the whole creaking opulent
cultural edifice, but also, in the downslaught, all the individual
bricks at the same time.
In his skepticism of the grand narratives of his time, he prefigures the
'post-modern," though without directly problematizing the notions of
narrative itself (e.g., The Metamorphosis, but also The Penal Colony).
He doesn't spare himself the same kind of examination he levels on the
institutions and structures that sustained himself along with "them."
Do you think this reading does justice to K? or helps locate him
hermeneutically? I dunno. Jus m'e $.01.
cheers
p.s.. Does anybody know: Did Barthes ever write about Kafka?
--
?_
john...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mvtu2$ev9$3...@eros.clara.net>,
fb...@central.susx.ac.uk (Lee Goddard Collective) wrote:
>
> On 24 Jun 1998 23:45:10 GMT nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) posted article
> <199806242345...@ladder03.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
>
> > <<
> > >Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
> > >his work? I have yet to form an opinion about this question so please,
> > >feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
> > >>
>
> > Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a
world
> > of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
> > meaning.
>
>
> Modernism shmodernism.
_______________________________________ Would Frank Lloyd Wrigth be a post
Modernist? Yes? Gropius is modern? Yes. Are these a good contrast and
comparison. I am trying to get a handle on what sounds like esoteric ramble,
but posters here seen to be following. Is there a primer on post Modernism?
I once e-mailed an editor of a John Hopkins' Univeristy Post-Modern magazine;
I asked her what post modernist is and used a comparison and contrast of the
two above. She wrote back and said she had no idea what post Modernism is:
She just compiles issues.
Do post modernist resist types of mass communication that use symbols too
much and cast histories as stories involving dramatic counter parts.
Modernist also cast as liking mystic effects?
We should condeem drama?
John William Freck
980628jwf
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Lee Goddard Collective
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:57:01 GMT john...@my-dejanews.com posted article
<6n6s9e$g9r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
> In article <6mvtu2$ev9$3...@eros.clara.net>,
> fb...@central.susx.ac.uk (Lee Goddard Collective) wrote:
> >
> > On 24 Jun 1998 23:45:10 GMT nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) posted article
> > <199806242345...@ladder03.news.aol.com> to alt.postmodern:
> >
> > > <<
> > > >Can Kafka's work be considered postmodern? If not, where would you place
> > > >his work? I have yet to form an opinion about this question so please,
> > > >feel free to rant about this topic if you have an opinion.
> > > >>
> >
> > > Kafka is CERTAINLY not postmodernist. As I typically view modernism and
> > > postmodernism (this will be explained), I would rank Kafka as a modernist.
> > > Modernists typical try to create a world (or elavate this world) into a
> world
> > > of truth and perfection, and usually fill there works with symbolism and
> > > meaning.
> >
> > So your Modernism began when? 1450? 1200? 80 CE? 200 BCE?
> >
> > Modernism shmodernism.
> _______________________________________ Would Frank Lloyd Wrigth be a post
> Modernist? Yes? Gropius is modern? Yes. Are these a good contrast and
> comparison. I am trying to get a handle on what sounds like esoteric ramble,
> but posters here seen to be following. Is there a primer on post Modernism?
> I once e-mailed an editor of a John Hopkins' Univeristy Post-Modern magazine;
> I asked her what post modernist is and used a comparison and contrast of the
> two above. She wrote back and said she had no idea what post Modernism is:
> She just compiles issues.
Hee-hee: lovely.
Is not spirituality an aspect of several people's view of the pomo? The Bauhaus
were certianly spiritual, generally Modernist in the eyes of several traditions
they partiallly embodied.
> Do post modernist resist types of mass communication that use symbols too
> much and cast histories as stories involving dramatic counter parts.
> Modernist also cast as liking mystic effects?
Doesn't everyone see histories as stories? Isn't it important what we see
stories as?
What is 'mystic effect'?
> We should condeem drama?
Are we really that puritan? Then Providence help us...
I don't claim to know what the post-modernists like or don't, or even that the
title pomo means anything. I rarely compose thoughts on this ever present
matter. Occasionally I do notice very old traditions and trends, that were once
modern, nominated as 'post-modern' or 'Post-Modern' or 'Postmodern.' I'm
looking forward to postmodernism, sure I always will. After all, everybody
needs to cling to something: others are unreliable; religion never helped,
ideology too broad, dogma is too silly, I belong to several Nations so
Nationalism don't work... even the BBC is heading towards privitisatin and the
abyss.
Should I worry?
Lee
john...@my-dejanews.com
Lee said,
<snip>
> Hee-hee: lovely.
>
> Is not spirituality an aspect of several people's view of the pomo? The
> Bauhaus were certianly spiritual, generally Modernist in the eyes of several
> traditions they partiallly embodied.
>
So Pomo is spiritual and modernism represnts 'the world' and worldly doctrine?
> > Do post modernist resist types of mass communication that use symbols too
> > much and cast histories as stories involving dramatic counter parts.
> > Modernist also cast as liking mystic effects?
>
> Doesn't everyone see histories as stories? Isn't it important what we see
> stories as?
>
Well, yes people learn about the past with the aid of stories. Stories which
involve dramatic resolutions. Yes, History (a profession, the text, the
documentary, the pictures, but not now the past) is important. It is
important to seperate the past from history. The past like the present are
complex and escape the capacity of one field to express this complexity.
Most Americans get there "History" from National Geographic. The
geographical view point is very visual and "webular". It is important to
keep things complex.
> What is 'mystic effect'?
It is a mood employed in music, drama, political debate, religion. It is a
candle blowing in the wind. It is an effect of art and tis is related to tea
and other substances. Jimi Hendrix in 1967? wrote and sung "The Wind Cries
Mary". It is about a woman cleaning up a mess after a domestic dispute. Its
metaphors work well for the North~South Vietnam situation. Layering of
meaning can create the mystic mood. Mystic effect is a deliberate effort to
creat a mood called "mystic" in an audience. Highly metaphorical, combined
art can create a strong sense of mystic.
> > We should condeem drama?
>
> Are we really that puritan? Then Providence help us...
I am. Drama and the human need for it drives our suffering. Sex is a big one
too. And hunger! And thrist! Those four are rigth up there together.
>
> I don't claim to know what the post-modernists like or don't, or even that the
> title pomo means anything. I rarely compose thoughts on this ever present
> matter. Occasionally I do notice very old traditions and trends, that were
once
> modern, nominated as 'post-modern' or 'Post-Modern' or 'Postmodern.' I'm
> looking forward to postmodernism, sure I always will. After all, everybody
> needs to cling to something: others are unreliable; religion never helped,
> ideology too broad, dogma is too silly, I belong to several Nations so
> Nationalism don't work... even the BBC is heading towards privitisatin and the
> abyss.
>
> Should I worry?
All this intellectual talent is jsut enjoying a rambling display of esteric
vanity! This pomo group is just a bunch of Unitarians! Its OK if you if you
like it.
> Lee
>
JOHN
Iván Ordóñez
In article <199806242345...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) wrote:
[...] For postmodernists, language cannot convey truth [...]
Do they believe the above assertion to be true?
--
Ivan Ordonez
iord...@columbus.rr.com
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~iordonez
To reply by e-mail please remove yourpants
Lee Goddard Collective
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 00:52:20 GMT john...@my-dejanews.com posted article
<6n9cs3$ltn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> to alt.postmodern:
> Lee said,
[ * * * ]
> > Is not spirituality an aspect of several people's view of the pomo? The
> > Bauhaus were certianly spiritual, generally Modernist in the eyes of several
> > traditions they partiallly embodied.
John replied:
> So Pomo is spiritual and modernism represnts 'the world' and worldly doctrine?
I'm not sure I've yet read a published definition of the post-modern that makes
it post-anything. But certainly modernism is spiritual, by most definitions of
the term.
> > > Do post modernist resist types of mass communication that use symbols too
> > > much and cast histories as stories involving dramatic counter parts.
> > > Modernist also cast as liking mystic effects?
> >
> > Doesn't everyone see histories as stories? Isn't it important what we see
> > stories as?
> >
> Well, yes people learn about the past with the aid of stories. Stories which
> involve dramatic resolutions. Yes, History (a profession, the text, the
> documentary, the pictures, but not now the past) is important. It is
> important to seperate the past from history. The past like the present are
> complex and escape the capacity of one field to express this complexity.
> Most Americans get there "History" from National Geographic. The
> geographical view point is very visual and "webular". It is important to
> keep things complex.
No disagreement there. The problem seems to be that as soon as information is
communicated it becomes a ... story. 'Webular' is a great word.
> > What is 'mystic effect'?
> It is a mood employed in music, drama, political debate, religion. It is a
> candle blowing in the wind. It is an effect of art and tis is related to tea
> and other substances. Jimi Hendrix in 1967? wrote and sung "The Wind Cries
> Mary". It is about a woman cleaning up a mess after a domestic dispute. Its
> metaphors work well for the North~South Vietnam situation. Layering of
> meaning can create the mystic mood. Mystic effect is a deliberate effort to
> creat a mood called "mystic" in an audience. Highly metaphorical, combined
> art can create a strong sense of mystic.
That was a pleasure to read, thanks. Confuses me to remember you seeming to
move towards a condemnation of Drama.
> > > We should condeem drama?
> >
> > Are we really that puritan? Then Providence help us...
> I am. Drama and the human need for it drives our suffering. Sex is a big one
> too. And hunger! And thrist! Those four are rigth up there together.
OK, we generally need sex. We generally need food and drink. But drama is a
very broad catagory, surely? I'm unsure of possible US implication of the word,
but in England, drama usually equates to melodrama or passionate displays. Do
we have a drive to either?
In a sense, I suppose, however vicariously, or else Hollywood wouldn't work.
The whole of western civilisation as a play-act to satisfy the uncivilised urges
of the human animal... you're right: ban the lot of it. Kill them all.
There is no escaping the urge to drama. Maybe I can use it, as it isn't going to
go away. Without drama, wouldn't life be boring.
> > I don't claim to know what the post-modernists like or don't, or even that the
> > title pomo means anything. I rarely compose thoughts on this ever present
> > matter. Occasionally I do notice very old traditions and trends, that were
> once
> > modern, nominated as 'post-modern' or 'Post-Modern' or 'Postmodern.' I'm
> > looking forward to postmodernism, sure I always will. After all, everybody
> > needs to cling to something: others are unreliable; religion never helped,
> > ideology too broad, dogma is too silly, I belong to several Nations so
> > Nationalism don't work... even the BBC is heading towards privitisatin and the
> > abyss.
> >
> > Should I worry?
> All this intellectual talent is jsut enjoying a rambling display of esteric
> vanity! This pomo group is just a bunch of Unitarians! Its OK if you if you
> like it.
I come back every now and again, just to see what's cooking. When there's no
argument about Job simmering, I tend to get a piece of toast instead.
BTW, I think maybe we just are esoteric.
Lee
Nietzsche7
<<[...] For postmodernists, language cannot convey truth [...]
Do they believe the above assertion to be true?
>>
Paradoxically, yes.
Well, certainly I'd like to defend myself against accusations that I've never
read Kafka...I've read most of his short stories, and a lot of his diaries and
letters. Have I read him? yes. Simply because my definition of modernism
differs from someone else's doesn't mean I'm some bumbling idiot.
Let me ask you, Have you ever read Kafka? Let me take that a step further,
have you read anything about modernism and postmodernism?
How's this?
"Modernism concerns a particular set of cultural and aethetic styles associated
with the artistic movement which originated around the turn of the century and
have dominated the various arts until recently. Modernism developed in
conscious opposition to classicism; it emphasized experimentation and the aim
of finding an inner truth behind the surface appearance. The figures usually
catagorized as modernists include: Joyce, Yeats, Proust, KAFKA [ caps mine] in
literature; Eliot and Pound in poetry; Strindberg and Pirandello in drama;
Cézanne, Picasso, Matisse, the Expressionist, Futurist, Dadaist, and Surrealist
movements in painting; Schoenberg and Berg in music
The basic features of modernism can be summarized as : an aethetic
self-consciousness and reflexiveness; a rejection of narrative structure in
favour of simultaneity and montage; an exploration of the paradoxical,
ambiguous and uncertain; open ended nature of reality; and the rejection of the
notion of an integrated personality in favour of an emphasis upon the Freudian
'split' subject."
--Madan Sarup, "An Introduction to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism."
Yes, I concede that postmodernists rejected any sort of 'grand narrative', and
while it's sometimes difficult to tell postmodernism from modernism (as they
share many tenets), postmodernism generally is "antagonistic to any theory that
'goes beyond' the manifest to the latent." (Ibid). While Kafka may have
rejected some 'grand narratives' (as the fellow who read the "Castle" seemed to
point out, I don't know if it's true, though I am aware Kafka was highly
critical of beauracracy (sp?)) many of his stories certainly create an effect
that attempts to go beyond the obvious and creates a symbolic world arising
from disorder and absurdity (e.g. being apprehending and held on trial for no
reason[ "The Trial"], Being turned into a giant dung beetle ["the
metamorphasis"], being the last adovate/practitioner of an unappreciated and
dying art [ the hunger artist], or say, being called in the middle ofthe night
to attend to a patient amidst confusion ("I was in great perplexity"--A country
doctor).
I've never claimed to be an expert on Kafka, nor an expert on modernism and
postmodernism. I'm simply presenting popular literary classifications (whether
they hold any truth or not is irrelevent at this point), and explain to which
extend I feel to catagorizations are fair and accurate. To group any writer
specifically with some intellectual fad and solely with that fad seems
erroneous unless the author has hitherto named his own genre or classified
himself (e.g. Sartre calling himself and existentialist). Kafka share many
points in common with the modernists. Whether he may actually be one or not,
heart and soul? You'd have to ask him.
Now here's a question I've always had going around my mind about Kafka. He was
born and raised Jewish, joined a Jewish theatre group, and seemed to follow the
religion for the most part...On the other hand, many critics have seen
christian symbolism in his works. I heard one commentator remark that one of
the themes of "A country doctor" was salvation through christian metaphysics.
I've also seen other commentators point out christian symbolism in "the
metamorphasis." Kafka didn't deny that he had a great affinity forthe writings
of Kierkegaard and other christian theologians. Now here's my question. To
what extent was Kafka jewish, and to what extent was kafka Christian?
okay, I've babbled on long enough...
Adam
"And if there is still one hellish, truely accursed thing in our time, it is
our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt at the
stake, signaling through the flames."-Antonin Artaud.
Paul D. Lanier
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Lee Goddard Collective wrote:
We should condeem drama?
>
> Are we really that puritan? Then Providence help us...
>
> I don't claim to know what the post-modernists like or don't, or even that the
> title pomo means anything. I rarely compose thoughts on this ever present
> matter. Occasionally I do notice very old traditions and trends, that were once
> modern, nominated as 'post-modern' or 'Post-Modern' or 'Postmodern.' I'm
> looking forward to postmodernism, sure I always will. After all, everybody
> needs to cling to something: others are unreliable; religion never helped,
> ideology too broad, dogma is too silly, I belong to several Nations so
> Nationalism don't work... even the BBC is heading towards privitisatin and the
> abyss.
>
> Should I worry?
>
>
> Lee
>
Is that your millenialist view turned cynic? :)
Paul Lanier
Iván Ordóñez
In article <199806301754...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) wrote:
> <<[...] For postmodernists, language cannot convey truth [...]
>
> Do they believe the above assertion to be true?
>
> Paradoxically, yes.
Do they find this paradox to be problematic? If yes, what do they do about
it? If no, why not?
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6nc161$duu$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
[...] the sentence "language cannot convey truth"
> isn't held by anyone I know. It is mostly used by anti-pomos in order to
> construe the paradox they seek; in the rare cases that it is used
> otherwise, it's meant to be a shorthand for problems of linguistic
> representation of extra-linguistic entities.
What would be the extended version of the paradox-free statement that the
above is a shorthand of?
Paul D. Lanier
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998, Iván Ordóñez wrote:
>
> In article <199806301754...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> nietz...@aol.com (Nietzsche7) wrote:
>
> > <<[...] For postmodernists, language cannot convey truth [...]
> >
> > Do they believe the above assertion to be true?
> >
> > Paradoxically, yes.
>
> Do they find this paradox to be problematic? If yes, what do they do about
> it? If no, why not?
>
> --
> Ivan Ordonez
> iord...@columbus.rr.com
> http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~iordonez
> To reply by e-mail please remove yourpants
>
Self-contradiction is here. Does any reconciliation of the contradiction
exist? If so, then I am willing to bow to the assertion that the
postmodernist (alleged) belief is paradox.
Regards,
Paul Lanier
Nietzsche7
You keep pinning on a negative tint to the word paradox, as if the pomos didn't
know it was a paradox. They openly admit they statement is a paradox.
Postmodernism breeds on paradox.
How could a statement using language and at the same time showing languages
insufficiency not be paradoxical.
I'd like to see the longer version of this statement (if it exists) as well.
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6ncaig$gb5$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> Moggin, can you send the guy the FAQs?
Wait!!! I've read the FAQ. The anser is not there. I am looking for a
single sentence, a single predicate. Can that be done?
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6ndj9p$tvu$2...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> No. I can't give you a recipe for goat cheese tart with a single
> ingredient, either.
I didn't mean that you can use only one *grammatical* sentence, but that
there must be a central predicate in whatever exposition you make. Of
course, you will probably will need to define certain terms before, which
will require more sentences. But the end result will have to be a
predication of some sort will it not?
So please, establish your context all you want (tell me all the
ingredients for tart), but in the end tell me what "language cannot convey
truth" is a summary of.
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6nem3u$ncv$4...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
[...]
> : So please, establish your context all you want (tell me all the
> : ingredients for tart), but in the end tell me what "language cannot convey
> : truth" is a summary of.
>
> Plato, Vico, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Freud, Derrida.
I'm sorry, I don't think there is a verb in the above.
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6ng2a5$bec$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
> Iván Ordóñez (iord...@columbus.rryourpants.com) wrote:
[...]
> : I'm sorry, I don't think there is a verb in the above.
>
> 'scuse. Throw into blender and bake at 350.
Why even reply if you're not going to make any effort to answer the question?
Iván Ordóñez
In article <6nggkj$lj$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
[...]
> I did answer the question as honestly as I know how. You show up here
> with a sentence. You claim it's a "postmodern" sentence.
I must have a very bad memory, or I must have been sleepwalking, because I
do not recall ever making such a claim. I only asked whether that sentence
was, in fact, believed by someone. You said it wasn't and I believed you.
That would have been the end o it, except that you also said that this
sentence stands for something else, and I then asked what that something
else was. In my exchange with you I have made only questions, and I have
made no claims.
[...] I say there is no one-sentence explanation, but that there
> is a long history. You ask what that history is. I give you a few
> references. What more do you want? I have no idea what you know or what
> you've read.
I have read all of the philosophers you mentioned, but only fragments of
their work; I am familiar with theri main theses, except for Derrida, who
I have honestly tried to read, but whom I have not understood at all.
> You show up here with that consumerist attitude, but you
> give no indication what exactly it is, unless it is a remedial course in
> the history of the philosophy of representation.
> Read the FAQs again. There are plenty of excellent reading
> suggestions if you're really interested in the topic of representation
> and 20th century continental takes on it. If you have any _specific_
> questions, why not ask them. I'm sure somebody will respond, eventually.
I have been reading that FAQ since it was written. No, it has no answers
for my question. The question I asked is very specific. Does the statement
in question stand for something? Is that something a thesis of sorts? If
so, what is that thesis? I'm sure it shouldn't take more than a few
paragraphs to state a thesis! And I have no clue on what exactly you mean
what "consumerist attitude" you are referring to, unless you qualify the
quest for knowledge, discussion, conversation and debate among intelligent
people as consumerism.