To What End. Engorged modernism?
The interesting thing about Wilson, from my own myopic understanding of philosophy and theory, is the difficulty of pinning him down as a “textbook” this or that. Is he a humanist, biocentrist? of course, in application, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a person who occupies a static identity that can be articulately defined and expressed. Often I make observation of conversations where someone who self identifies as a liberal activist, details a vision of “liberal activism” which closely resembles neo-conservative ideas. It is not uncommon to be confused about what is really being said or done by certain words or actions. I think in To What End, there is some confusion about what agenda is really being forwarded as evidenced in classroom discussions that vacillate between seeing his project as benign, useful or destructive. I think we will all have difficulty saying what is really happening in the text until we look outside it.
That said, there are still a few theoretical issues I have with the last chapter, aside from the critique of the biocentric point of view implicit in all of his musings on population and resources. I sense through this chapter that he views science as the key to emancipate the life-world from the trouble of Modernism and the Enlightenment, while maintaining that the project of Modernism is still a valuable pursuit. While he is a scientist, and accordingly he should write about science, he precariously extends the discipline of science. I tend to side with Jurgen Habermas who would probably call this project a false negation of culture for its gross assertion of the sciences over spheres of aesthetics and morality. Real unity comes from efforts in all spheres not just one.
Yarish :: Nov.22.2005 :: Inscape / Landscape class ::