Is Zambrano's "conocimiento" the same as Valente's? I'm trying to argue that it is. If it were obviously the same, then I wouldn't have to argue it. If it is too different, then my argument is wrong. If it has must enough connections to be plausible, then my point will be interesting.
The same would go for Zambrno's "materialism" and Valente's concept of the same name. It would be too coincidental if Valente took these terms from Zambrano without thinking about her, right? It's like the detective who "doesn't believe in coincidences."
1 comentario:
In the history of philosophy there are many cases of people borrowing other people's terminology without appropriating (or even getting) their meaning. This leads to a lot of (to my mind) needless argument among exegetes who should be more willing to grant that typographical similarities between the concepts philosophers use are often, even when they reference each other, for all intents and purposes coincidental.
Is it something about Valente that makes you think he wouldn't read Zambrano superficially, so that he really just projects his own understanding of what knowledge is onto her concept rather than letting her arguments shape his concept? Or would it be too coincidental in any case?
(I'm looking forward to What Lorca Knew. I'm imagining that, like my Apocryphal Heidegger thesis, there's a parallel What Heidegger Knew.)
Publicar un comentario