[Milton-L] historicism, formalism, etc. (Skulsky)

[jfleming at sfu.ca]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:38:54 -0800 (PST) milton-l at lists.richmond.edu wrote:
> Prof. Feming
> 
> I wonder how you feel about Gadamer's insistence on totalization. 

I'm not sure I know what you mean by that. Can you explain? (Feel free,
since this theoretical discussion may have wandered off the straight and
narrow path, to do so to me off-list at jfleming at sfu.ca)

 I
> also wonder if you see any affinity between Gadamer and Milton in
> Areopagitica, where he argues (as I read it) that (a) there is a
> terminus ad quem to human knowledge (God), (b) it cannot be realized,
> but (c) we may approached in a kind of increasingly improved
> approximation, recognizing that some are better than others, through
> disputation.	

I certainly see profound affinities between M in Areo (and elsewhere) and
philosophical hermeneutics. Primarily, though, via the notion of dialogue. I
like the first two points of your account above, but it seems to me that the
third is inconsistent with them -- though this, again, is a kind of point
that is very often missed. If your (a) and (b) are true, then the
"approximation" of which you speak in (c) would appear to be erroneous.
"Approximation" could only stand as a category for our knowledge if we cd
know, from a transcendent perspective, what's wrong with it. But evidently,
we can't. Therefore, etc.

Is this an  anti-historicist account, or can one make
> sense of an argument that history itself is the membrane by which
> approximations improve, even if we never reach the end and can never
> really know the end (we are always in Plato's cave).
> 
> Kim Maxwell

As above. Best wishes, JDF
James Dougal Fleming
Associate Professor
Department of English
Simon Fraser University
778-782-4713
cell: 604-290-1637

"Not always, nor of necessity, nor for the most part."