|
Lädt ... What's Wrong with Postmodernism?: Critical Theory and the Ends of Philosophy (Parallax: Re-visions of Culture and Society)81 | Keine | 331,023 |
(3.5) | Keine | In What's Wrong with Postmodernism Norris critiques the "postmodern-pragmatist malaise" of Baudrillard, Fish, Rorty, and Lyotard. In contrast he finds a continuing critical impulse -- an "enlightened or emancipatory interest"--In thinkers like Derrida, de Man, Bhaskar, and Habermas. Offering a provocative reassessment of Derrida's influence on modern thinking, Norris attempts to sever the tie between deconstruction and American literary critics who, he argues, favor endless, playful, polysemic interpretation at the expense of systematic argument.… (mehr) |
▾Empfehlungen von LibraryThing ▾Diskussionen (Über Links) Keine aktuelle Diskussion zu diesem Buch. ▾Reihen und Werk-Beziehungen Gehört zur ReiheGehört zu Verlagsreihen▾Auszeichnungen und Ehrungen
|
Gebräuchlichster Titel |
|
Originaltitel |
|
Alternative Titel |
|
Ursprüngliches Erscheinungsdatum |
|
Figuren/Charaktere |
|
Wichtige Schauplätze |
|
Wichtige Ereignisse |
|
Zugehörige Filme |
|
Epigraph (Motto/Zitat) |
|
Widmung |
|
Erste Worte |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. It is a curious fact – one noted by Perry Anderson in his book Considerations on Western Marxism – that the level and quality of theoretical work on the left often seems to vary inversely with the fortunes of left-wing politics at large. Then again, one could argue (and Anderson does) that this should not be any great cause for surprise, since a recourse to theory is typically the response of any marginalised fraction of dissident intellectuals, excluded from the mainstream of political life and left little choice but to cultivate a range of more of less hopeful alternative visions. Still one might think it a curious turn of events when this response takes the form of a deep investment in issues of aesthetics, philosophy of art, and literary theory as the chief areas of concern among a sizeable number of committed left-wing cultural activists. For it is, to say the least, far from self-evident that specialised work in these areas could eventually feed back to exert any influence on the way people live, think, feel, vote, and comport themselves in the public sphere of politically responsible action and choice. The suspicion must be – or so it would seem from a commonsense-realist standpoint – that these theorists are just whistling in the dark, discovering all manner of pseudo-radical rhetorics and postures by which to disguise their own deep sense of political failure and defeat. [from "Introduction: Criticism, History and the Politics of Theory"] In this chapter I propose to contest some of the arguments that Habermas brings against Derrida in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. It seems to me that he has misread Derrida's work, and done so moreoveer in a way that fits all to readily with commonplace ideas about deconstruction as a species of latter-day Nietzschean irrationalism, one that rejects the whole legacy of post-Kantian enlightened thought. In short, Habermas goes along with the widely-held view that deconstrution is a matter of collapsing all genre-distinctions, especially those between philosophy and literature, reason and rhetoric, language in its constative and performative aspects. This is all the more unfortunate since Habermas's book (which I shall henceforth refer to as PDM) is by far the most important contribution to date in the ongoing quarrel between French post-structuralism and that tradition of Ideologiekritik which Habermas has carried on from Adorno and earlier members of the Frankfurt School. So I will be criticising PDM from a standpoint which might appear squarely opposed to Habermas's critical project. That this is not at all my intention – that in fact I concur with most of what Habermas has to say – will, I hope, become clear in the course of this chapter. [from chapter 1, "Deconstruction, Postmodernism and Philosophy: Habermas on Derrida"] | |
|
Zitate |
|
Letzte Worte |
Die Informationen stammen von der englischen "Wissenswertes"-Seite. Ändern, um den Eintrag der eigenen Sprache anzupassen. To this extent at least one is justified in asserting that Lacoue-Labarthe is indeed a 'Heideggerian', and that moreover he subscribes – in all 'essential' respects – to certain theses that characterise Heidegger's thinking, early and late. These include his assurance that the 'question of Being' is one that can properly and intelligibly be raised as Heidegger raises it; that this question takes absolute priority over all other philosophical concerns, thus reducing them to side-issues or matters of a strictly limited ('metaphysical') import; that thinkers whoe reject or ignore this claim are thereby betraying their own incapacity for thought at such an elevated level; and finally, that Heidegger's post-1933 writings offer a sustained and uniquely authoritative statement on the Nazi phenomenon and his own brief period of involvement with it. What is clearly unthinkable to Lacoue-Labarthe is the contrary argument: that Heidegger's entire philosophical production – and not just that momentary lapse during the pre-war years – might best be accounted for in teerms of aesthetic ideology, or the confusions engendered by a mystified appeal to language (one particular national language) as a source of revealed truth. It is this lesson that we are given to read in de Man's late essays, but which figures only as a massive and symptomatic silence in the texts that Heidegger supposedly produced by way of 'settling accounts' with National Socialism. (Zum Anzeigen anklicken. Warnung: Enthält möglicherweise Spoiler.) | |
|
Hinweis zur Identitätsklärung |
|
Verlagslektoren |
|
Werbezitate von |
|
Originalsprache |
|
Anerkannter DDC/MDS |
|
Anerkannter LCC |
|
▾Literaturhinweise Literaturhinweise zu diesem Werk aus externen Quellen. Wikipedia auf EnglischKeine ▾Buchbeschreibungen In What's Wrong with Postmodernism Norris critiques the "postmodern-pragmatist malaise" of Baudrillard, Fish, Rorty, and Lyotard. In contrast he finds a continuing critical impulse -- an "enlightened or emancipatory interest"--In thinkers like Derrida, de Man, Bhaskar, and Habermas. Offering a provocative reassessment of Derrida's influence on modern thinking, Norris attempts to sever the tie between deconstruction and American literary critics who, he argues, favor endless, playful, polysemic interpretation at the expense of systematic argument. ▾Bibliotheksbeschreibungen Keine Bibliotheksbeschreibungen gefunden. ▾Beschreibung von LibraryThing-Mitgliedern
Zusammenfassung in Haiku-Form |
|
|
Aktuelle DiskussionenKeineGoogle Books — Lädt ...
|