Kant’s anthropology’s was pragmatic. It was however also, resolutely modern. The question for us might then be: what is the ratio or proportionality between a modern pragmatic anthropology, and one oriented to the contemporary?
“Consolation : comfort received by a person after a loss or disappointment.”
When one is being excluded (marginalized, ostracized, neglected, etc.) there is a temptation to respond in a mode of:
Heroic irony. One must bear up under the slights and one must find a mode of distancing.
Much better: recalcitrance. Refuse the reproaches. Above all refuse irony.
When i asked Professor N why she was critical of Israel but not China (and fifteen others), she said "I am not a philosopher" and "I write what I feel like."
I am have been proposing that those advocating boycott's should take some risks in doing so. Or at the very least explain why they are choosing one case as the one to intervene in. Without any further defense or discussion, it is fair to say the only criteria that applies in this case and not others is anti-Semitism.
"But some of my best friends are Jews."
Today a headline in the NYT reads "Syrian's Photos Spur Outrage but not Action."
As we wait for this Thursday "town hall meeting" on boycotting Israeli universities, I continue to wonder what the moral
scale is that sets Israel aside from others?
In terms of sheer brutality and murder and supression of minorities, China or Russia among others are higher on the list.
Is anyone calling for a boycott of Chinese Universities?
I truly do not know how to think about this issue.
Spinoza, Part 3, "Ethics"
Proposition XXXVIII: If a man has begun to hate a beloved thing, so that his love of it is altogether destroyed, he will for this very reason hate it more than he would have done if he had never loved it, and his hatred will be in greater proportion to his previous love.
Proposition XXXIX: If a man hates another he will endeavor to do him evil unless he fears a greater evil will therefore arise to himself; and, on the other hand, he who loves another will endeavor to do him good by the same rule.
Given a veritable tradition of experimentation in collaboration in American anthropology (of which no doubt there are other national variants) it is noteworthy how collaboration has re-emerged as an object and practice for anthropology. Looking back on the recent past of anthropology and with his efforts in post-war collective social scientific projects in mind, Clifford Geertz wrote that,
New #1 Paul Rabinow wrote 0 sec ago
Lyle's lucid and insightful post opens up an important field of discussion and thought.
It would be important for several people to pursue this synthesis and to expand to discuss to other venues.
One question that arises for me: why now? There would seem to be at least two dimensions to this (no doubt there are others). (1) Is there a problematization to which this ontological term is one possible solution? and (2) it strikes me that there is a re-occupation of older problem spaces (nineteenth century) that is a mistake.
Over at the Los Angeles Review of Books, Todd Meyers interviews Paul Rabinow on the logic of anthropological inquiry. The interview is available below, or here:
On the Logic of Anthropological Inquiry: A Conversation with Paul Rabinow
Published 4 November 2013.
"Philosophy Talk" Live at the Marsh San Francisco June 30
"The Dark Side of Science" with Paul Rabinow.