<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thinking otherwise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/12/03/thinking-otherwise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/12/03/thinking-otherwise/</link>
	<description>Secularism, religion, and the public sphere</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 19:41:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Zog Kadare</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/12/03/thinking-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-38664</link>
		<dc:creator>Zog Kadare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=20810#comment-38664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This discussion can also be understood in terms of critical theory and the discourse on &quot;reification,&quot; that is, the discourse on hegemony and the creation of common sense within ideological regimes. 

I think trying to show functional examples is an interesting way to go with Heidegger. Although at times we must step beyond the vault of some Kierkegaardian &quot;new&quot; space, we can still speculate effectively about such an &quot;impossible&quot; avenue. 

To stay within a Heideggerian discussion, one that goes to Being, I think we can study genetics in terms of the ontic &quot;worldings&quot; generated. The wolf becomes a dog through selection in quick time. All our sense data---the world that shows up for us---is (or can be understood to be on a certain view) determined by genetics. We can understand changes in &quot;worldings&quot; even within the Darwinian discussion. 

One can bring &quot;cold philosophy&quot; &quot;down to earth&quot; by watching the history of the introduction of some social change, as in the theory of Judith Butler. Or my old crude example, the games in ancient Rome: they were thought ordinary activities like the practice of &quot;exposure&quot; of infants---that is leaving the child to die or be taken up by another in the street. In movies today Caesar gives the thumbs up to signify that he will save the life of a gladiatorial combatant; this agrees with our present notion of normal behavior; In fact the thumbs up meant kill the man, i.e., the crowd got the pleasure of watching the blood sport&#039;s consummation in death; &quot;as cheap as life itself&quot; was a common sense utterance at that time. So there is certainly change in this &quot;modest&quot; social sense. However, one could even say here that Dasein has changed also, if minutely. And also that such changes can happen in fits and sudden &quot;mutations&quot;.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This discussion can also be understood in terms of critical theory and the discourse on &#8220;reification,&#8221; that is, the discourse on hegemony and the creation of common sense within ideological regimes. </p>
<p>I think trying to show functional examples is an interesting way to go with Heidegger. Although at times we must step beyond the vault of some Kierkegaardian &#8220;new&#8221; space, we can still speculate effectively about such an &#8220;impossible&#8221; avenue. </p>
<p>To stay within a Heideggerian discussion, one that goes to Being, I think we can study genetics in terms of the ontic &#8220;worldings&#8221; generated. The wolf becomes a dog through selection in quick time. All our sense data&#8212;the world that shows up for us&#8212;is (or can be understood to be on a certain view) determined by genetics. We can understand changes in &#8220;worldings&#8221; even within the Darwinian discussion. </p>
<p>One can bring &#8220;cold philosophy&#8221; &#8220;down to earth&#8221; by watching the history of the introduction of some social change, as in the theory of Judith Butler. Or my old crude example, the games in ancient Rome: they were thought ordinary activities like the practice of &#8220;exposure&#8221; of infants&#8212;that is leaving the child to die or be taken up by another in the street. In movies today Caesar gives the thumbs up to signify that he will save the life of a gladiatorial combatant; this agrees with our present notion of normal behavior; In fact the thumbs up meant kill the man, i.e., the crowd got the pleasure of watching the blood sport&#8217;s consummation in death; &#8220;as cheap as life itself&#8221; was a common sense utterance at that time. So there is certainly change in this &#8220;modest&#8221; social sense. However, one could even say here that Dasein has changed also, if minutely. And also that such changes can happen in fits and sudden &#8220;mutations&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hugh Thomas</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/12/03/thinking-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-34146</link>
		<dc:creator>Hugh Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Dec 2010 15:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=20810#comment-34146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your argument has a great deal in common with Mahayana Buddhism.  I&#039;m not saying this in an attempt to contradict RO by claiming that reality is really Buddhist, not Trinitarian!  But it seems like there are interesting resources within Buddhist thought that could contribute to this discussion.  

To begin to outline what I&#039;m talking about, Mahayana Buddhism&#039;s critique of Theravadan Buddhism is essentially that it seeks an other-worldly transcendence.  Mahayana Buddhism asserts that samsara (confusion; everyday reality) is not different from nirvana (enlightenment).  (&quot;As it is, whole and complete, this sense world is enlightenment.&quot;)  And yet, transcendence is not foreclosed.  Though it&#039;s perhaps not so easy to sort out how this is managed...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your argument has a great deal in common with Mahayana Buddhism.  I&#8217;m not saying this in an attempt to contradict RO by claiming that reality is really Buddhist, not Trinitarian!  But it seems like there are interesting resources within Buddhist thought that could contribute to this discussion.  </p>
<p>To begin to outline what I&#8217;m talking about, Mahayana Buddhism&#8217;s critique of Theravadan Buddhism is essentially that it seeks an other-worldly transcendence.  Mahayana Buddhism asserts that samsara (confusion; everyday reality) is not different from nirvana (enlightenment).  (&#8220;As it is, whole and complete, this sense world is enlightenment.&#8221;)  And yet, transcendence is not foreclosed.  Though it&#8217;s perhaps not so easy to sort out how this is managed&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene McCarraher</title>
		<link>http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/2010/12/03/thinking-otherwise/comment-page-1/#comment-33983</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene McCarraher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Dec 2010 01:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ssrc.org/tif/?p=20810#comment-33983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As sympathetic as I am, &quot;wonder&quot; also recalls Thomas Carlyle -- hardly a champion of democracy.  Carlyle invoked &quot;wonder&quot; in Sartor Resartus and elsewhere in his work to mean respect and reverence for the power and majesty of God, the finitude of human power, the beauty of the natural world, the giftedness of things, the extraordinary quality of ordinary life and existence.  But as the author of Heroes and Hero-Worship, Carlyle eventually enlisted &quot;wonder&quot; in the service of idealizing strong, authoritarian figures, more filled with &quot;wonder,&quot; apparently, than the &quot;mobocracy&quot; he disdained.  Even though Christopher Lasch tried to vindicate Carlyle and &quot;wonder&quot; in The True and Only Heaven, his attempt founders on what even Lasch has to concede was Carlyle&#039;s &quot;unpalatable&quot; political views -- which, however, he doesn&#039;t want to link back to &quot;wonder.&quot;  

And it&#039;s not as though Heidegger has the most inspiring political record. . .]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As sympathetic as I am, &#8220;wonder&#8221; also recalls Thomas Carlyle &#8212; hardly a champion of democracy.  Carlyle invoked &#8220;wonder&#8221; in Sartor Resartus and elsewhere in his work to mean respect and reverence for the power and majesty of God, the finitude of human power, the beauty of the natural world, the giftedness of things, the extraordinary quality of ordinary life and existence.  But as the author of Heroes and Hero-Worship, Carlyle eventually enlisted &#8220;wonder&#8221; in the service of idealizing strong, authoritarian figures, more filled with &#8220;wonder,&#8221; apparently, than the &#8220;mobocracy&#8221; he disdained.  Even though Christopher Lasch tried to vindicate Carlyle and &#8220;wonder&#8221; in The True and Only Heaven, his attempt founders on what even Lasch has to concede was Carlyle&#8217;s &#8220;unpalatable&#8221; political views &#8212; which, however, he doesn&#8217;t want to link back to &#8220;wonder.&#8221;  </p>
<p>And it&#8217;s not as though Heidegger has the most inspiring political record. . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
