Academic journal article Mosaic (Winnipeg)

Introduction

Academic journal article Mosaic (Winnipeg)

Introduction

Article excerpt

"Philosophy's Letters" is a course I have always wanted to teach, although and probably because it would be regarded by the institution as non-serious, superfluous to "the discipline" and to critical theory proper. For at least since Plato, inheritance of the classical Western tradition has distinguished letter-writing from serious thinking, relegating the former to an outcast, non-philosophical (non-critical) genre. Consider for example Kant's 1796 "Of an Overlordly Tone Recently Adopted in Philosophy," which opposes Plato the letter-writer to Plato the philosophical father, and which relegates letter-writing to the outside of philosophy, to the status of a "mystagogy" that contaminates logos with mythos, pure philosophy with mysticism, secrecy, and the poetic (see also Derrida's "Of an Apocalyptic Tone"). But where does "outside of the proper" begin, and how does one distinguish a thinker, a philosopher, or literary critic from a poet and/or writer of letters? How, for instance, is a "serious" reading of Freud diminished by consideration of his letters, say to Wilhelm Fliess, Carl Jung, and Martha Bernays, among others? And what, if any, import might the exchange of letters between Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt have for a critical understanding of the philosophy/philosophical import of either correspondent?

Written over some twenty-five years, all to his dead wife Sylvia Plath, Ted Hughes's Birthday Letters are poems: letters as poems, released not long before the writer's death. Of course, the collection raises the question of auto-bio-graphy--what this term means and how the auto-than-a-to-graphical might be, and perhaps should be, read. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.