RE: Re: Re: Re: essentialism
J Bradford De Long: It is also "essentialist" to speak of "men" as a category that a single thought can "reduce"... It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as a single intellectual move that has common effects in a wide range of domains... It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as if it has an "essence" that can be unproblematically labeled... It is also "essentialist" to label "essentialism" as "essentialist"... It is also "essentialist" to subject all "essentialism" to the common criticism of being "essentialist"... To deny the heterogeneity of the different things collected under the heading of "essentialism" is "essentially" "essentialist"... Listen, I have a small jar of vanilla essence in my kitchen, what does that make me? Vanilla or essential? Mark Jones
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: essentialism
Listen, I have a small jar of vanilla essence in my kitchen, what does that make me? Vanilla or essential? Mark Jones You cannot have such a jar. The critique of essentialism has finally, totally, and completely demonstrated that the "essence" of vanilla does not exist.
Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism (fwd)
since those who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are anti-Enlightenment, should it be a surprise that their discussion isn't enlightening? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine ROFLOL...
Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism (fwd)
In response to Justin's comment, I made the following joke: since those who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are anti-Enlightenment, should it be a surprise that their discussion isn't enlightening? responding to this, Mine wrote: actually, you are describing yourself, since you "misrepresented" the marxist position as built upon false dichotomies like biological versus cultural determinism. I don't understand why the word "misrepresented" is in quotation marks. I didn't know that one could refer to "the marxist position" as if all Marxists had exactly the same position on this issue -- or any other. Marxism isn't a dogma, a bunch of formulas, or a catechism. Rather, it's a debate (though there are important agreements amongst Marxists). I didn't apply a "dichotomy" between biological vs. cultural determinism, because there are other alternatives, including a dialectical and dynamic view of the sort I would advocate. Are you trying to insult me? marxist position is not essentialist. it is dialectial and dynamic,which is what makes it a very "enlightenment" thinking.. That's easy to say, but hard to actually do. I was trying to start to develop that view. The connection between Marx and the Enlightenment is complex. He learned a lot from Kant (et al.) but also was quite critical of the Enlightenment perspective. He added to (and subtracted from) the Enlightenment perspective(s). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: essentialism
Brad De Long wrote: It would be "essentialist" to reduce men to that characteristic... It is also "essentialist" to speak of "men" as a category that a single thought can "reduce"... It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as a single intellectual move that has common effects in a wide range of domains... It is also "essentialist" to speak of "essentialism" as if it has an "essence" that can be unproblematically labeled... It is also "essentialist" to label "essentialism" [snip] Brad just touches on the various "paradoxes of substance." May I repeat that Kenneth Burke is really fascinating on this. Carrol
