[lit-ideas] Re: *Eichmann in Jerusalem*
- From: "Judith Evans" <judithevans1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:49:34 +0100
I should have asked this before, I suppose. Why "Hannah" but
"Kant"?
----- Original Message -----
From: <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Ed Farrell" <ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 8:21 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: *Eichmann in Jerusalem*
>
> Many thanks to Ed for a very informative post. It gives me some
meat to gnaw on
> until the book makes it to my mailbox. But I'm hoping that Ed
or anyone will
> put his or their humility aside and take a stab at making some
sense of
> Hannah's idea that judgements of right and wrong regarding
particular
> historical events or individual subjects can be made without
appeal to general
> principles, rules or concepts, as per Kant's "reflective
judgement" (Third
> Critique). This seems impossible to me (and should have so
seemed to Kant as
> well); I don't know why Hannah ever saw the question as a
sensible one. Any
> examples of such judgements that anyone cares to offer will be
appreciated (if
> not accepted.)
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
