I had a nice night. Before that, I chased two kids around for six hours (ages 2 and 5). That was ok. Then I went to pick up Indian take-out. Waiting, I … relaxed. A beer. Watch the Australian tourists talk to each other. I’m enjoying Jonathan Lethem, The Fortress of Solitude. Belle loaded up iTunes with lots of new stuff but nothing seemed quite good enough for the evening. Then I noticed … four Stephen Malkmus tracks: “Baby C’Mon”, “The Hook”, “(Do Not Feed The) Oyster” and “Jenny and the Ess-Dog.” They’re Amazon freebies. Help yourselves.
And/or you can help me understand Kant on “What Is Enlightenment?” I made a long post at the Valve. Input from Kant scholars – and others – would be sincerely appreciated. I’m puzzled by the public/private flip-flop, the ‘argue all you want but obey’ maxim, and especially the weird seed metaphor. And a few other things.
{ 5 comments }
J. Ellenberg 08.06.06 at 12:27 pm
“Baby Yeah” on Luxe and Reduxe is a nice complement to “Baby C’Mon.” Somewhat surprisingly, Pavement was always really good on their occasional straight ahead rockers. (I’d put “Two States” here, too.) Last song on your list is properly titled “Jenny & the Ess-Dog,” by the way.
Uncle Kvetch 08.06.06 at 3:47 pm
“The Hook” is a fun little tune…so is “Oyster,” for that matter. And I say that as someone who never liked Pavement in the least.
hilzoy 08.07.06 at 12:47 am
I dunno; I’ve always found it helpful, when considering Kant on public/private in this essay, to think of the distinction as related to that between the general will and particular wills. The public is universal; the private is specific and limited. I don’t think it’s a “cunnning reversal”, etc., just a usage that’s as unfamiliar to us as the idea that particular wills, qua particular, must be in some way defective.
John Holbo 08.07.06 at 4:06 am
Post title and song list updated in response to ellenberg’s correct criticism.
Hilzoy, I’ve got a paper on my desk by one John Christian Laursen, “The Subversive Kant: The Vocabulary of ‘Public’ and ‘Publicity'” (in What is Enlightenment?, an anthology edited by James Schmidt, University of California Press, 1996). He argues that, by the standards of Kant’s day, it would have been weird usage:
“Kant’s usage of ‘public’ to refer exclusively to writers and the reading public is striking today, and it would have been in Kant’s day, too. We are accustomed to thinking of a career in civil service as part of our “public life” and any writing that we might do evenings and weekends as our own private affair. As any scholars have noticed, kant turned this meaning around. I shall explore sources for this alternative usage below.”
He does so. “By the eighteenth century, the process of reduction of “public to “pertaining to the state” had reached a high point among legal writers.” For examle: “In 1762 the jurist Georg Wiesand wrote that res publica, including everything from rivers, forests, and salt licks to light and water, belong to the prince. They were ‘public’ not because they were out in the open or of general use but because the prince claimed to own them.”
In view of this sort of usage, Kant’s is alleged to be highly provocative, although he is not alone. Usage by Lessing, Wieland and others is cited.
I have no opinion about it, really. But apparently at least some scholars think it really was a ‘cunning reversal’ of sorts.
Flaffer 08.07.06 at 11:58 am
I have come to love Malkmus’ solo stuff recently. I would suggest buying both of them and enjoying. 4 is just a taste; a smorgasbord awaits.
Comments on this entry are closed.