ahhh amazing! wish i discovered this earlier. I really enjoyed it. My favorite question was the very last one. Please, can anyone provide me with the name of the feminist posthumanist author writing on potatoes and the transfer of bodies ....thanks!
Irony of ironies: her criticism of The Enlightenment as bearing the responsibility for our inheritance of the paradigm of a singular linear universal history is itself a cliche that assumes a singular unified period called The Enlightenment which, in truth, was marked by internal tensions and polysemic ambiguity.
Not to mention she states that it isn't really the universal narrative that's done away with, but rather that a bunch of people experienced this event differently.
This seems a bit too meticulous. "Not only" is a method that is very well established in modern anthropological circles, and the most important part of any method is to know when to use it. If she would have used it to try to define "enlightenment", she could, but probably she'd lose time on it + it would make her overall point less clear. She has a wide circle of co-workers, philosophers, anthropologists and other people who refer to her, whose work can provide you with the neccessary substratum to understand her references, including how the conceptualization of the enlightenment period is created within this wider humanist or scientific circle. Furthermore, she stresses several times that praxis is what uncovers a certain aspect of a certain history which is still here for us to see. If I am not mistaken, this is the point of many philosophers of history, including Gadamer. You will never be able to define a certain era with a bunch of facts about it, but in a way you already are a part of this history, all you need to do is start taking an attitude towards it. In that way, you need to start from a certain clear concept which you self-consciously accept as something which acquires more and more sedimentation, but starting from "clear and distinct ideas" would be a trap.
ahhh amazing! wish i discovered this earlier. I really enjoyed it. My favorite question was the very last one. Please, can anyone provide me with the name of the feminist posthumanist author writing on potatoes and the transfer of bodies ....thanks!
amatsing!
I think it's Lucian Gomoll
Irony of ironies: her criticism of The Enlightenment as bearing the responsibility for our inheritance of the paradigm of a singular linear universal history is itself a cliche that assumes a singular unified period called The Enlightenment which, in truth, was marked by internal tensions and polysemic ambiguity.
Not to mention she states that it isn't really the universal narrative that's done away with, but rather that a bunch of people experienced this event differently.
This seems a bit too meticulous. "Not only" is a method that is very well established in modern anthropological circles, and the most important part of any method is to know when to use it. If she would have used it to try to define "enlightenment", she could, but probably she'd lose time on it + it would make her overall point less clear. She has a wide circle of co-workers, philosophers, anthropologists and other people who refer to her, whose work can provide you with the neccessary substratum to understand her references, including how the conceptualization of the enlightenment period is created within this wider humanist or scientific circle.
Furthermore, she stresses several times that praxis is what uncovers a certain aspect of a certain history which is still here for us to see. If I am not mistaken, this is the point of many philosophers of history, including Gadamer. You will never be able to define a certain era with a bunch of facts about it, but in a way you already are a part of this history, all you need to do is start taking an attitude towards it. In that way, you need to start from a certain clear concept which you self-consciously accept as something which acquires more and more sedimentation, but starting from "clear and distinct ideas" would be a trap.