[lit-ideas] Re: SOS or Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:55:38 -0700 (PDT)
--- John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1) The "self" is a uniquely modern idea or
> product.
> >
> > 2) There is something about "modern self" that is
> > unique and distinct from pre-modern (or un-modern
> ?)
> > selves.
> >
> > I don't see how either implication would be
> > sustainable without some fairly precise
> definition.
>
>
> Is a portrait, a novel, a well-written piece of
> narrative history a
> definition? There are many sustainable ways of
> advancing knowledge or
> arguments that do not depend on definitions and
> deductions from
> definitions. The classic sterility of "purely
> semantic discussions"
> is, arguably, the direct result of starting with
> definitions instead
> of from observations that can be arranged in
> plausible, even useful,
> patterns while eschewing any claim to be definitive.
*Maybe it's because of my work current work as an ESL
instructor that I am a bit skeptical about the
effectiveness of discussions that do not introduce
precise definitions. If I would start lecturing my
students about "the self" without explaining what it
means, they would either ask "what is that - self ?"
or just slip into apathy. Well, I guess that I am
going to do the latter for the time being.
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:
