NP no facts only interpretations

[Otto]

> mr. Bauerlein says one has to make a distinction between how a truth has
> been discovered, and the epistemological basis of that truth.  To conclude
that the author silently
> asserts a divine intervention is intellectually dishonest.
>

Which truth? Whose truth?
Or as Jbor says: "What he never says is what he means by "truth".
I would state things like these Bauerlein says as a thesis, not as a
"truth" - every reading is necessarily an interpretation, and this goes for
fiction as well as for other texts. Who claims something different
inevitably introduces some "divine intervention" or meaning ex machina, even
if he doesn't say so, and we may ask why.

He doesn't speak about postmodernism? He does:

"(...) social constructionism. It is a simple belief system, founded upon
the basic proposition that knowledge is never true per se, but true relative
to a culture, a situation, a language, an ideology, or some other social
condition."

"In the chapter on post-structuralism, Eagleton spends little time detailing
the arguments of founding tests like "Différence," and instead strings
together deconstructive platitudes-"Meaning, we might say, is thus never
identical to itself"-and then summarizes, "Post-structuralism was a product
of that blend of euphoria and disillusionment, liberation and dissipation,
carnival and catastrophe, which was 1968."

I cannot see what is wrong in Eagleton's words, what I see is a lame attack
on poststructuralist theory as "deconstructive platitudes". Bauerlein's
topic is much to wide to be put into a small essay. A critical book on
Critical Theory would give him much more opportunity to "prove" his
statements.

Newton is indeed not the best (most appropriate for the 21st century)
example for a scientific truth that stands the test of time. The
Wave/Particle discussion would have been better to be discussed by Mr.
Bauerlein. This is a perfect example of how a scientific "truth" relies on
the viewers perspective and its intentions.

The idea that we all have *not* got enough time to read all those necessary
books or P-list postings we'd like to (knowing that they're all social
constructs) may be true or not -- it remains sad.

In this context I have received a very nice offlist-post from someone who
should be here. The part for the public is this:

                         h a i k u   f o r   o t t o

                         four-year literature
                        study cannot be enough:
                       there should be more time ...

Thanks

Otto