Monday, June 22, 2015

"It is no secret that contemporary philosophy is under the spell of the Other"

The entirety of a comment, not mine.
People being what they are, anything is possible. Sordid, secret affairs of the heart, driven partly by ambition and partly by lust, being what they are makes this at least doubly true. Frankly, I wouldn't give 0 credence to either a scenario in which G's allegation of rape is part of an elaborate ass covering narrative on her part. Nor would I give 0 prior credence to the proposition that it was Ludlow who was doing the ass covering. Heck, I wouldn't give 0 prior credence to the thought that it was not G herself who first chose to frame their relationship in terms or rape. Could be, for all the evidence shows, that it was the folks G sought counsel, solace or advice from who first said to her, "Don't you realize that you were raped by him?" Perhaps only then, sometime after the fact, she herself came to see this as rape, not out of some hidden or nefarious motive, necessarily. Who knows? 
The point I keep wanting to make is that sex and power and self-doubt make for extraordinarily fraught situations. And you combine that with the complexities of human psychology and you get, well, a mess. Which is one reason I disagree with those who think that this story is uniquely G's to tell (or, heaven forbid, Ludlow's to tell.) I wouldn't trust either of them as teller of this tale. Their stories would be likely full of self-deception, dishonesty and self-serving confabulation. You'd need a story teller willing to take a completely honest, possibly brutally so, look into the psychology of each party. You'd need a story teller with no interest in choosing sides, One that was willing to state hard truths about each. Only then could you get a story you could begin to trust. Or so it seems to me.
Yes, I'm commenter "anomalous". Leiter rejects everything under my own name now and he's blocked me on twitter.

He's never understood that the hermeneutics of suspicion applies even to those who use the term. The irony is he gets the line from Ricoeur, without understanding his point.

Naturalism undermines individualism, but not republicanism. It undermines philosophers' pretensions but not lawyers' trade.

No comments: