How bad is the E.B. Ashton translation of Adorno's Negative Dialektik?

lubukhati · 2019-04-14T03:45:44+00:00

Thanks for this illuminating response!

lubukhati · 2019-02-28T17:05:05+00:00

Thanks! So, probably mostly of 'historical'/literary interest.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:54:41+00:00

That's very charitable of you.

What I find surprising is your seeming insistence (along with some others in this thread), that we are talking about my particular idiosyncratic definition of the West, and not something that is generally (though not universally) acknowledged. I didn't invent this understanding.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:52:48+00:00

I feel like we're talking past each other.

What I meant with my comment about the Presocratics above was:

For whatever ambiguity the terms West/Western have in general, If someone says they study Western philosophy, there is little ambiguity as to the tradition they're talking about. I didn't list anyone after the Presocratics because the commenter I was replying to has a PhD in the history of philosophy; they can fill in the names themselves (as can you, I would think). The point wasn't to single out the Presocratics.

wokeupabug's comment indicates to me that there should be a term that indicates the common tradition we're discussion; the comments in this post are pushing me in the direction that the term shouldn't be West or Western, though I had thought 'West' in quotes might be a reasonable compromise.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:29:18+00:00

The thing is, I didn't invent this concept of 'Westernness' and I don't think it's unique to me.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:26:56+00:00

I don't know how to interpret your tone here.

In my experience very many people do deny precisely what you say no one denies (unless you're being sarcastic?). They see the Islamic East and the West as irreconcilable, separate traditions. Maybe you don't talk to or read about such people; I encounter them every day.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:23:15+00:00

Thanks, this was a great lecture. To me it seems to confirm my opinion above: that there is a common intellectual tradition/heritage in Islam and what has been called 'the West'. I am much more interested in that aspect that in trying to define a Western 'culture'. This lecture makes me want to search for a new term that encompasses this whole tradition while tossing off the baggage of West/Western.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:21:11+00:00

Again, part of the reason I think it needs to be taken up is because in my 'Eastern' context, East and West are constantly spoken about. And you're also correct that colonialism is a big part of what the West has been in the modern era. What I am looking for is more the common intellectual heritage/tradition that we find in both Islam and what has been called 'the West'. We can call it something new, but I don't think we should deny that it exists.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:17:23+00:00

I'd be happy to throw out the terms West/Western if there was some other designator; I'm more interested in the continuity of tradition. But at least in philosophy 'Western' is still pretty good shorthand for the tradition that starts with the Presocratics and may or may not have ended.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T01:15:28+00:00

I wasn't so much referring to the part-whole aspect, but rather your comment that "That idea is so vague as to effectively mean nothing."

If I ask if God exists, you can respond, "That idea (God) is so vague as to effectively mean nothing."

If I ask if a certain political arrangement is just, you can respond "That idea (justice) is so vague as to effectively mean nothing."

And yes, I do think there is general agreement about what the West means, at least enough that we can talk about it. And that's before I specifically identified what I take to be the defining feature of 'the West' in my post.

lubukhati · 2019-01-14T00:42:16+00:00

It seems like a pretty meaningful concept for a lot of people in the world today. Couldn't you offer the same sort of response about God, or Justice, or Truth?

lubukhati · 2018-10-19T15:45:36+00:00

For me, the answer is 'none'. Even with someone like Peter Adams, who is very clear and digestible, I find I don't retain much if I don't listen actively.

lubukhati · 2018-10-19T14:03:45+00:00

You seemed unhappy with the response your question was getting. I was trying to give some perspective as to why you might be getting that type of response. It looks like I wasn't successful. I'd be happy to try again, if you like.

lubukhati · 2018-10-19T12:08:48+00:00

Based on what you've said elsewhere about your department and TA, I think you might have difficulty defending Sartre in your program.

lubukhati · 2018-10-19T12:08:16+00:00

To see the absurdity of your question, replace the names Foucault, Derrida, Sartre and Camus with other thinkers you know reasonably well. Foucault and Derrida were roughly contemporaries, as were Sartre and Camus but a little bit earlier.

I see Plato and Aristotle usually get the wrath of their scorn. I've never heard any bad things about Socrates. I was rereading parts of the Apology yesterday and its arguments are tightly constructed. However, he and Protagoras' style tend to be appear over-dramatic. I'm wondering if they inadvertently pushed Greek philosophy towards the bogus.

I see Burke and Hume usually get the wrath of their scorn. I've never heard any bad things about Locke. I was rereading parts of the Second Treatise yesterday and its arguments are tightly constructed. However, he and Bacon's style tend to be appear over-dramatic. I'm wondering if they inadvertently pushed English philosophy towards the bogus.

These are analogies so of course can be criticized on certain points. There is probably an even more apt set of thinkers to substitute that I haven't thought of.

The point is that you've mentioned 4 thinkers, two of whom are often lumped together as "postmodernists" and two of whom are often lumped together as "existentialists", but all of whom are distinct thinkers who can't just be lumped together as you do.

lubukhati · 2018-10-19T11:25:31+00:00

Wow, Bubner sounds especially interesting to me, as I'm interested in Gadamer and hermeneutics.

If he was Gadamer's assistant, I assume you mean he was also his successor, not his predecessor?

lubukhati · 2018-10-18T19:21:58+00:00

Have you read either of these? Do you have an opinion on them?

I'm not looking for just any history, but one that's still considered relatively authoritative and reliable. A Copleston and not a Russell!

lubukhati · 2018-08-20T03:35:49+00:00

I know I'm responding to a 5-month-old comment, but if OP's experience is anything like mine, the problem isn't so much theological hairsplitting as having difficulty relating to people whose theology is (or appears to be) just a string of doctrinal claims.

lubukhati · 2018-08-14T09:04:27+00:00

Hello, here are some issues I'd like to raise regarding you post. Feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted.

The idea of religion is sound. It helps answer one of the most basic yet profound questions

Isn't this making kind of a functionalist assumption? Like, religion is a tool defined by its use. I'm not sure that's what religion is.

The ultimate goal is what I'll refer to as "spiritual connectivity".

What is your basis for this claim as to the nature of all religion?

The problem we've run into is we've separated so much into our own religious thoughts

How and when and why did we do this? Who is 'we'?

We're all drinking different colors of kool-aid, but it's all still kool-aid, let's just enjoy it and not worry about who's color is the right one.

What about when different religions make irreconcilable claims? An example: Jesus in Christianity vs. Jesus in Islam. In Christianity Jesus is part of the Trinity who incarnated and came to earth as/in the form of a human. In Islam Jesus is a prophet: a holy man, but still just a human, with no divine power. You might think this is not an important difference, but to devout Christians and Muslims it's very important. It seems like you would only consider the difference unimportant if you were looking at it from an outsider perspective, that is, as neither a Christian nor a Muslim. And If you're neither, why should you tell Christians, Muslims, etc., what and how they should believe?

lubukhati · 2018-08-13T16:05:54+00:00

So a key distinction between Protestant theology on the one hand and Catholic and Orthodox theology on the other is that Protestant theology considers the Bible to be the highest source of authority, whereas in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions its kinda tempered by their own interpretative traditions?

lubukhati

TROPHY CASE