Each of our voices
has something unique to say.
Not only
should I not
mold my life
to the demands
of external conformity;
I can't even find
the model by which
to live outside myself.
I can only find it within.
-Charles Taylor (canadian philosopher)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Does RCC approve? Or Walker Percy? OR HEGEL?
I doubt it. Soft squishy canadian left--the boodha-jeebus.
Hegel's JC wears an .... Eisencruz
But it's yr blog, of course.
all the private magisteriums
tend quickly to banality
USAers so lost in theire
distracted mayhem
do well to attend to
the perceptions of the canadians
they see things we don't
still one would think
the text matters
why fear
a poignant case for
infinite variety and uniqueness
in these oddly conformist times
Private? well, waxing analytical for a few seconds ala Doktor Stu one could ask...does Taylor the philosopher provide necessary true arguments in his philosophy? No--AFAICT. Now, that's the case with many phil. people, including Hegel--it's speculative, conceptual etc. But traditionally that was the case--even with Aquinas (tho' TA's 'proofs"--ie, for G*d-- are empirical, based on the old Aristotelian physics). So it's sort of conceptual--then one might say per Hegel is....the greeks vs persian really "logical"? . Actually I have a Taylor text, Freres jh..on Hegel. Wordy, "postmodernist", squishy--canadian-liberal. The un-Hegel
i can only find it within
Scuzi a bit of...dissent.
I don't understand his complete schema--will read mo' when trabajo allows.
Taylor appears to be a language guy sort of though...perusing some material online. Actually Ive come to the realization..that the...latinate itself is important (as I may have said before). as even old southerners thought---Sic semper tyrannis
Making the crackers take spanglish even helps things a bit.
I'm just waiting for the next Charles Taylor quote ;-).
Taylor's a Foucaultian as well--tho' changed his tune a bit.
That explains it! French fag rightist.
Better the moderate muslims--or intelligent secularists-- than phony pedophile xtians. Eh shallah
j
has anyone ever used the word toxic in reference to your words
maybe this country needs word pollution agencies
you've got EPA and then there coudl be WPA
no they've already tried WPA let's say RPA rhetorical protection agency - clean smoke clean water
that sort of thing
political categories are like sieves
yo
jh
Grazi.
I was taught to ....not blindly accept thinkers/dogma but like examine writing/ideas and...offer reasoned critique. So like Taylor's point on the evils of secularism,if not Reason itself---debatable at least. And alas I can't quite join the PoMo types who insist..all the secular, western thinkers of the "Aufklarung"--say, Thomas Jefferson--are evil,misguided, soulless. He had issues but compared to..Bonaparte (catholic boy, or so he said late in life)...fairly negligible.
Dissent matters ,jh--and your devotion to blog-freedom matters (hopefully it will stay that way).
i don't mind dissent it's the rhetoric i can't stand
not too long ago rhetorical skills were subject to consistent trial and error practices as a mode of college education
no more
everywhere i look
it shows
it's possible to be simple straightforward and elegant
stu
is a good example of that
as is sally
i like to shake things up once in awhile but i prefer to keep it in the realm of my own formulations and not fopp things off on grander epistemological or sociopolitical scheme schemes
keep on rockin in the free world
what's left of it
jh
Ah rhetoric. Rather down the list a-ways from Logos. Anyway you mean civil, I think. Are you civil? Not always. So everyone must use civil rhetoric but you? While I agree to an extent--in formal settings at least--comboxes are not dissertations, though I will try to be civil since you asked (so much for beats, rebels, gonzo etc).
Shouldn't one read for content, dear sir, not merely for what one takes to be form or style? So, re Taylor's claim on secularism--while one's loathe to bring up the dreadful subject of factchecking, would it not be subject to some type of confirmation or verification?? So the Taylorites must earn their shekels the old fashioned way, and prove it, by jove. While we might very well agree secularism does result in actual damages (say the bolsheviks' treatment of the orthodox) any sort of empirical assessment--ie a cost-benefit analysis of sec. vs religion-- would IMHO be rather difficult if not impossible, and for that matter might conceivably prove the contrary (consider the Crusades, islamic history, the catholic/WASP conquest of the west, etc).
Post a Comment