Candice, ummm... my training is in philosophy of culture and philosophy
of social sciences in Australia and I haven't studied or taught in the
US so I don't really know what continental and analytic philosophy are.
>From what you outline they seem to be (recently invented?)
counter-positioned terms. I don't think it would be possible to
understand a very difficult philosophy such as Deleuze by considering it
as most concerned with rhetoric since analysis and logic are two
essential traits in Deleuze's metaphysics, more so then rhetoric. With
Derrida I can understand how rhetoric could appear as the most
conspicuous feature.
Anny gave a far more concrete and practical reply to my concern with the
Eternal Return in so far as what is missing is the present time needed
for thought and in a sense this Now Time is untimely. There is perhaps
implicit in the labels continental philosophy against analytical
philosophy an implicit demand that you drop what you are doing and
follow this latest development since this is the coming future and the
coming past, but missing from this future to which we must be most
concerned is the very real actual present. So it becomes a sort of
willing ignorance or willing stupidity which places you in a position of
always being an apprentice or a slave to life long learning as continual
education since you are said to be still too ignorant to think for
yourself. So present thinking is then denied any right as thought. My
argument most specifically with Deleuze is his reading of the Eternal
Return as selection or cut. It follows from this some quite considerable
quarrels with Deleuze as to the virtual ground and so forth. But I don't
know if this answers yr question....
On Sun, 2007-02-18 at 03:41 -0800, MC Ward wrote:
> Chris, y
>
> Candiceou seem to be neglecting Anglo-American
> analytic philosophy for Continental philosophy,
> wherein Deleuze is the most important philosopher (as
> you say). Some would argue that Continental philosophy
> has taken over, from Derrida on, but since analytic
> philosophy is the "brand" taught in most U.S.
> philosophy departments, it cannot be dismissed
> lightly. Others argue that, with Continental
> philosophy, rhetoric is the most conspicuous feature.
> What do you think? Does Nietzsche's Eternal Return and
> theory of Untimeliness belong to an era when it could
> stand, rhetorically, for philosophy?
>
> Candice
|