Group blog

« Agamben fails to rise from the dead (or in my estimation) | Main | Levinas and death, part I »





You really cannot decide whether a position is pragmatically useful on this basis. It's important that you consider the implications of Critchley's claim both for neo-anarchism and direct democracy, critically without addressing any of the issues that this immediately raises. Nor does the reference to the 'motivational deficit' impress either, primarily because democracy cannot be critiqued from a starting point which claims that they represent the purer democracy of direct democracy.

The question that Jodi did not address is wther it is theoretically acceptable to try and merge the ethics of such disparate and figures to justify this central political gesture.

Adam Thurschwell

sdv, I've responded to this here, at Long Sunday.

The comments to this entry are closed.