The basis for the answer to this question history of epistemology pdf from Sedgwick’s understanding and examination of queer theory, which she describes for her readers. Through this and various other examples, Sedgwick reveals that several sexual contradictions result in modern misunderstanding. The book also largely focuses on language’s impact on sexuality, and how labeled speech acts are ultimately the proof of the nature of one’s sexuality. Sedgwick uses the writings of these authors to point out examples in other pieces of famous literary text that help propel her argument about the binary behind the homosexual identity and how language serves to define that binary.
The minoritizing view maintains that certain individuals are truly born gay and only those born with the “deviant” traits share an interest in them. The universalizing view stresses that homosexuality is important to persons with a wide range of sexualities. This view believes that there is no such thing as a stable erotic identity, and while not everyone is bisexual in physical behavior, everyone is to some degree bisexual in their inherent qualities of mind and character. The book proposes the argument that “homosexuality” is a loaded term. Like the term “homosexuality”, the term “gay” produces mixed results. However, other women identify themselves as “gay women,” which disassociates themselves from the term “lesbian”. The term resulted from Sedgwick’s belief that terms like “gay”, “bi”, and “homo” could not be appropriately distinguished from one another.
This book examines the emotions provoked by the AIDS epidemic that was widespread at the time. The book’s main theme deals with the relationship between feeling, learning, and action. Sedgwick describes this book as the exploration of “promising tools and techniques for nondualistic thought and pedagogy. Readers who still hanker for expository prose without digressions might on occasion be frustrated with this book, as will readers whose politics differ from Sedgwick’s. Sedgwick’s position as one of the most important thinkers in American gay studies.
Sedgwick’s homosexual closet as “the defining structure for gay oppression in this century. The article points out the influence behind Sedgwick’s strong disagreement with those who separate gays and straights as “distinct kinds of persons,” with no common humanity. Proust, Nietzsche, Henry James and Thackeray bristle with keen observations relating entrenched fears of same-sex relationships to contemporary gay-bashing and obvious displays of heterosexual or “macho” attitudes. However, not all reviews were positive.
The Nation, Jan 21, 1991, Vol. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Philosophy and Literature, Volume 15, Number 2, October 1991, pp. Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: 10. This page was last edited on 8 December 2016, at 20:26.
However, several definitions of knowledge and theories to explain it exist. Without this idea of a “theory of knowledge,” it is hard to imagine what “philosophy” could have been in the age of modern science. He believes it, but it isn’t so,” but not “He knows it, but it isn’t so. He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way “knowledge” is used in natural languages.
Following this idea, “knowledge” has been reconstructed as a cluster concept that points out relevant features but that is not adequately captured by any definition. Other forms of communication include observation and imitation, verbal exchange, and audio and video recordings. Thamus, the Egyptian king and Theuth the inventor of the written word. Technopoly, Vintage, New York, p. King Thamus is skeptical of this new invention and rejects it as a tool of recollection rather than retained knowledge.