ANAL-LICKTICKLE PHILOSOPHY & TRADITIONS

[Ralph Dumain <rdumain@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Justin Schwartz sez:

>APh is rather a set of methodological commits and a location in

>a certain discursive tradition. Taking the latter first, it's a

>matter of who you read and feel accountable to. Do you feel

>obliged to respond to Quine and Sellars? Is your idea of a

>political philosopher Rawls? Then you're an APh.

This little statement says more than you can imagine.  Too bad you
don't feel embarrassed making it.

Is not the quintessence of academic mediocrity the manner in which
one is assimilated into traditions?  Does anybody think that David
McInerney, Dick Howard, or Carl Boggs have anything interesting to
say?  Given the recent post on Terry Eagleton, does Eagleton have
anything to say?  Or are all these characters imprisoned by the
very erudition which molded them, which created what for them
constitutes thinking?

And this is not even talking about analytical Marxism, which has
nothing to say to anyone not interested in getting tenure in
sociology, economics, or political science departments.

I thank my stars for my work on C.L.R. James, who will outlast you
all.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------