Posted: Jan 19, 2017 9:06 am
Spinozasgalt wrote:But there's a tendency from some of these guys that I want to avoid, which is to highlight a similarity (and, to be fair, they often work hard on picturing and clarifying it) and then pass or patch over the differences and forcibly assimilate philosophy to literature.
Do you think that tendency is described by the fact that writers of literature (as distinct from literary critics) quote whom they will, and leave the reader to make the citations? Literary critics do quote explicitly, and that's one similarity they have with philosophers. I'm suggesting the rest of the difference is only in quantity, and not in quality.
Macdoc wrote:So philosophy can let one assume different "masks" if you like in considering issues.
That's a trope from a particular interpretation or reading style. It's not required. It does get back to what the blog poster linked by VazScep was talking about, where one is in it for the 'experience'. Some Whorfian might say that it's inevitable, though. The concept of 'Whorfians' makes me think of aliens among us. You can take 'alien' and run with it as far as your Derrida will carry you.