Posted: Wed May 12, 2004 11:08 pm
Kant was a lamo, he wouldn't have climbed, or posted. Husserl would bracket the work, then bracket the posts, then, uh, rephrase whatever Kant would say. But it's all a moot point, becuase Heidegger made them both footnotes. That said, Heidegger would certainly climb first, but he would probably do the work before dealing with the posts (too much "secondhandedness"). But Foucault would definitely climb first, then post, then work, and Derrida would post about how the climbing undermines the unspoken premises of the work itself.merrick wrote:shouldn't it be climb, catch up on the posts, then work??? i swear that is was Kant said in his grounding of the the metapysics of morals. ...or was that in the Critique of pure reason?
(All this reminds me that I should probably reread "Discipline and Punish," Foucault's analysis of the intertwined and interdependent developement of prisons, the military and our modern world.)
