Keston wrote:
> Later adopted by boring-as-infinite-beige analytic philosophers.
Written by someone who hasn't, it appears, given any such
philosophers a serious reading. The captious catch-phrase
'analytic philosophy' is bigger than some people's common-
sense prejudices.
To go back to the Founding Fathers, I don't know how one could
find Frege, Wittgenstein or the early Russell boring. Nor does this
adjective suggest itself with regard to, say, Saul Kripke, Crispin
Wright, Gareth Evans, Michael Dummett, Elizabeth Anscombe,
Cora Diamond, Jacques Bouveresse, to name just a few. Unless
one has no taste for _philosophical_ reasoning, which most
people don't. Difficult, yes, in a way that Derrida and Adorno
aren't (they have their own famous difficulties), but not boring.
I myself find such luminaries as Lyotard, Kristeva,
Levinas, Agamben, Jakobson, Bourdieu (at least sometimes,
but often for long stretches) dull in every sense of the word.
Well, ok, Bourdieu seems to have _something_ going on
upstairs, but Christ, the prose...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|