[lit-ideas] Re: SOS or Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 03:38:06 -0700 (PDT)
--- John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> With all due respect, I may be curmudgeonly. The
> persona that Omar is
> now presenting is a blustering version of the fool
> that Aristotle
> describes, the one who insists on greater precision
> than the subject
> matter warrants.
*That's only because you insist on misinteprpeting (or
overinterpreting) me. I wasn't asking for a formal
logical definition that includes all cases of p and
excludes all cases of non-p. I was asking for some
kind of explanation of what is meant, what is "the
subject matter" that supposedly warrants such or other
way of talking about it. Must any mention of
"definition" raise hairs ? It is quite often for
authors in the humanities as well (which is the field
in which I was trained, no hard science or maths) to
present a working definition or some such.
I have my personal reasons for raising this objection,
because I have encountered the concept of "self" twice
in my aborted academic career. One was a seminar paper
on construction of self in John Donne which I never
turned in, another an M.A. thesis on selfhood in
modern minorities literature which I never wrote. I
felt that I didn't know what to look for and that I
couldn't use the term meaningfully in any descriptive,
still less analytic way. So I wasn't only considered
with teasing Taylor and John, although admittedly it
was one of my motives.
O.K.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
