Oppositional Ideas, Not Dichotomous Thinking: Reply to Rorty

Abstract

It is an honor to reply to Amelie Oksenberg Rorty, especially given that her astute and creative interpretations of Spinoza have been an inspiration for my own work. Along with others, her work has shown me how to think not only about but with Spinoza. Such a practice of philosophy entails perhaps a greater measure of risk, since it aims not only to analyze Spinoza's arguments but to show what they can do, how they can transform our own ways of thinking and living. Rorty finds that my own appropriation of Spinoza toward a reconcep tion of ideology critique falls short, however, by (a) failing to take Spinoza's mind-body identity seriously and by (b) advocating a of ideas rather than an enlargement of perspective. She presents an illuminating analysis of how, according to Spinoza, dichotomies serve as blunt provisional tools that become counterproductive once understanding is reached. She suggests that I preserve certain distinctions to the detriment of my own liberation project, such as the distinction between the truth of an idea and its persuasive force. As part of criticism (a), she admonishes me for neglecting the importance of material conditions, and with criticism (b) she suggests that the imagery of battle misconstrues the project of becoming rational and the power of truth. Below I will try to show that we do not disagree about either the importance of material conditions for a project of political transformation or the identity of mind and body in substance. We do disagree, however, about the character of ideology critique. I will offer an example, in an attempt to demonstrate why it is neither a distortion of Spinoza nor strategically counterproductive to understand the project of thinking as an effort of what I call resistant recon struction within the attribute of thought.