tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post115345349903012371..comments2024-03-10T20:46:19.274-04:00Comments on In the Middle: Can Humanists Talk to Postmodernists?Cord J. Whitakerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06224143153295429986noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153860666966154372006-07-25T16:51:00.000-04:002006-07-25T16:51:00.000-04:00Right, Karl--as science shows us, we have to accep...<I>Right, Karl--as science shows us, we have to accept the fact that we do represent, on whatever scale, continuum, "family" tree, evolutionary or otherwise, a unique *species*.</I><BR/><BR/>Right. But what I've been trying to get my head around are the full implications of evolution not being teleological, not a tree, but rather being arranged in terms of optimal functioning within a habitat. Rhizomatic, you know. A certain bird is not <I>better</I> than another certain bird, or a certain lizard, not 'more advanced.' but rather more or less successful in its own habitat, which means cooperating with climate and, as consumer, as prey (or fertilizer), and as host, with other species. Figuring out how this applies to the human should go a long way towards getting us out of naturalizing what I think a teleological and provincial conception of the human. But my problem is that it's not as though figuring out that my existence as a unique (but ever evolving) species is as special as any other species is going to propel me into being able to think past myself. And I'm afraid, too, that that desire to get past myself sounds rather too much like any number of transcedentalist dreams, even if thinking past yourself seems, also, the foundation of ethics. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, thinking past the human as evolutionary apex, thinking past human consciousness as uniquely capable, seems the best way I know to get past the impasse of the human tradition.<BR/><BR/>But what this means in action? Who knows. And I suppose that's where I come back to your post.Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153854291724379832006-07-25T15:04:00.000-04:002006-07-25T15:04:00.000-04:00Right, Karl--as science shows us, we have to accep...Right, Karl--as science shows us, we have to accept the fact that we do represent, on whatever scale, continuum, "family" tree, evolutionary or otherwise, a unique *species*. At some point, we decided to call that "homo sapiens" [knowing man], and then "human," and now the difficult task is determining which traditional definitions of "human" are suspect, outmoded, dangerous, but also good and virtuous, and what kinds of *new* desrciptive language do we need to define what "being human" means, and why that should matter from a more "global" perspective.Eileen Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756965845120441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153847962015997622006-07-25T13:19:00.000-04:002006-07-25T13:19:00.000-04:00Finally, Karl is coming over the the dark side of ...<I>Finally, Karl is coming over the the dark side of the humanists!</I><BR/><BR/>It's more that I can't see a way to get past it. And even if I did, what ground could I stand on that would allow me to speak? It's not as though there's something 'out there' beyond species!Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153838612554174412006-07-25T10:43:00.000-04:002006-07-25T10:43:00.000-04:00Karl wrote:"Well, you know me. I want to suspend t...Karl wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Well, you know me. I want to suspend the 'human' altogether, although I suspect that by plugging in the word 'subject' as a substitution, I'm not doing anything other than slipping the human in under another name."<BR/><BR/>Finally, Karl is coming over the the dark side of the humanists! A friend of mine, who I quoted at length in a previous post, recently brought to my attention Gomez Davila, who Michael described as a "Columbian aphorist, anti-modernist, some would say reactionary but I would say just not-very-cheerful about things?" Davila wrote that "every true humanism involves a critique of humanism." This echoes what Edward Said argued in his last set of published lectures.Eileen Joyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13756965845120441308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153765823125792422006-07-24T14:30:00.000-04:002006-07-24T14:30:00.000-04:00Quick not too bright responses:Well, you know me. ...Quick not too bright responses:<BR/><BR/>Well, you know me. I want to suspend the 'human' altogether, although I suspect that by plugging in the word 'subject' as a substitution, I'm not doing anything other than slipping the human in under another name.<BR/><BR/>As for the alleged 'impossibility of critical judgement': please! Impossibility of final or self-certain critical judgment. To which I say: thank goodness!Karl Steelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03353370018006849747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153532332691844362006-07-21T21:38:00.000-04:002006-07-21T21:38:00.000-04:00"Secular humanists suspect there is something more..."Secular humanists suspect there is something more gloriously human about resisting the religious impulse; about accepting the cold truth, even if that truth is only that the universe is as indifferent to us as we are to it." Tom Flynnbeepbeepitsmehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12931640447011071849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153495282633703652006-07-21T11:21:00.000-04:002006-07-21T11:21:00.000-04:00Okay, I just realized that, yes, Emile B. sent me ...Okay, I just realized that, yes, Emile B. sent me the link to the Goldblatt essay, but so did Mary Ramsey (about a month ago), which I forgot. Just wanting to spread the credit (or blame?) around a little.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21165575.post-1153491483906611022006-07-21T10:18:00.000-04:002006-07-21T10:18:00.000-04:00Just a quick addendum to my latest post to say tha...Just a quick addendum to my latest post to say that, having read Goldblatt's essay two or three times [it kind of makes my head swim], that I realize that there is some heavy sarcasm being employed there [albeit the essay also represents a serious argument], and I detect an anti-theory bias in it. Regardless, his terms are such that he minimizes to a fault the intellectual postures of *both* camps [humanists *and* postmodernists]. What do others think? Also, are medievalists inherently more "humanist" than they are "postmodernist"? And what might that mean, exactly?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com