|
Ok, I can't be bothered to read every post, sorry if I'm going over old ground.
Yes, pitfalls, good and bad in both - I'm keen on the Adornian idea of seeing the enlightenment as part of a continuum ('Odysseus as the prototype for the bourgeouis individual') and the Kuhn's (or Lakatos', I always confuse the two) notion of paradigm shifts.
Which is to say that it's faintly ridiculous to criticise the enlightenment because first of all it's part of an ongoing continuum and second of all it's a past paradigm shift - modernism's thrust is a paradigm shift which moves us away from the notion of a 'pure' enlightenment; there are those who would argue that post-modernism is a sub-shift, but I would say that modernism hasn't quite run its course as of yet.
The flaws in enlightenments ration have surely been played out by now - we know the errors in its process (which applies to the ridiculous arguments of Berkley and the like) and what appeals to Platonic notions of universal forms (Kant, Hegel).
Don't we?
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
Last time I was in Chicago I spent an hour in a Nazi submarine with a banjo player.
|
|