That is flatly wrong. The Thanatos Syndrome nowhere implies that the
Qualitarian search for social order presupposes a more fundamental
commitment to the primary value of inter-personal conversation. Tom
More's feeling that he is on to something results precisely from the
inability of old acquaintances to resume familiar patterns of conversation.
Como and Van Dorn sacrifice the possibility of such conversation for the
sake of social order. Conversation of course, needn't be verbal or
linguistic; it can rest in something much more fundamental such as capacity
to give and receive love.
James Wood also think
> In other words, absent any transcendent reference for himself and creation,
>man will lobotomize himself in an effort to make sense of his world...
That is hardly unclear, it is a very familiar saying.
It is totally incoherent and self-defeating. Presumably there was a
confrontation between Averroist Aristotelianism and Augustinianism in the
13th century university. I hadn't read that any of the participants
lacked intact frontal lobes; nor that Aquinas thought Aristotle similarly
handicapped. But perhaps Mr. Woods thinks the unmoved mover a
transcendent being. That might be interesting.
Lobotomies, even metaphorical ones, are serious business. Clearly, no
one who reads MacIntyre, Hegel and Heidegger should suggest that Hume
lobotomized himself.
A. Edward Manier, Professor
Philosophy & History and Philosophy of Science
Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values
314 Decio
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame, IN 46556
(o) 219-631-6520
FAX 219-631-8209
Dept 219-631-6471
http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/index.html