[FRA:] Marcuse question

[Ralph Dumain]

I'm no expert on the Renaissance, so whether Dan Knauus is right about 
Renaissance humanism and its (non)relation to individualism is secondary to 
the generally reactionary philosophy he promotes.  Furthermore, it seems, 
by the characterization presented by Jim and by Kraus, that postmodernism 
would have to be classified as part of the conservative 
counter-Enlightenment.  You can't logically be opposed to enlightenment 
liberalism without being for fascism.  Of course, if Heidegger is one of 
your inspirations, fascism is just a seig heil away.

At 08:58 PM 2/21/2006 +0000, steve.devos at krokodile.co.uk wrote:
>James,
>
>and the purpose of the link is what ? It doesn't appear to add any meaning 
>or context to the previous four points...
>
>s
>
>
>James Rovira wrote:
>
>>I should probably spell out how I view the US political landscape.
>>
>>1. Dominated by the principles of enlightenment liberalism: the autonomous
>>individual is the primary political unit.
>>2. "Liberals" and "conservatives" in US politics are both shades of
>>enlightenment liberalism: leftliberalism and rightliberalism.
>>3. The political spectrum is not fully represented by leftliberalism or
>>rightliberalism -- in fact, the image of a "political spectrum" doesn't
>>quite work.  We need more than a simple linear model to represent different
>>political views -- at least on two axes, perhaps three.
>>4. Postmodernism is most intelligibly understood as a critique of
>>enlightenment liberalism.
>>
>>You're right that most who self identify as "postmodernists" are "liberals"
>>in the US political sense.  That's largely because most of what passes for
>>postmodernism is really very stupid, or because you have to cast your vote
>>somewhere and people tend to be pragmatists -- vote for the side that will
>>give you most of what you want for now, happy with it or not.
>>
>>The following link is an interesting assessment of the relative positions of
>>postmodernism, the enlightenment project, and humanism from a
>>neotraditionalist perspective.  The approach is literary-historical.
>>
>>http://www.newpantagruel.com/2006/01/placing_the_ear.php
>>
>>Jim Rovira
>>
>>On 2/21/06, Ralph Dumain <rdumain at igc.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>While your response is more intelligible than Fred Welfare's, I'm still
>>>having trouble making sense out of it.  Is the problem the many meanings
>>>attaching to the term liberal?  And is not pomo the province of political
>>>liberals as we term them in the USA?  There's certainly nothing radical
>>>about pomo.