Fantastic and very satisfying takedown of Kant, but I would say that as I've been on a bit of an anti-Kantian kick since...well, birth.
Fun little fact about Gaiman's novel American Gods (his last one that, IMO, was at all readable): It is essentially a non-satirical rewrite of Douglas Adams's (far superior) The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.
The contrasts between Adams and Gaiman (who wrote Adams's biography) are interesting and instructive on the Kantian angle, as Adams's entire body of work is playing with the integration of science and aethetics while Gaiman's work starts out puzzling over their intersection (his early short stories, especially) and then gradually moving further and further into the dissociation between the two, first fancying himself a CS Lewis-like figure, and then moving further out attempting to recapitulate pagan mythology without actually understanding how any of it works (even on a Jungian level). As he's developed, he's blow right past "gnosticism" into "hipster shallow," a punk aesthetic without any of the punk rebel spirit. It's been a dismaying course to watch an a man who once displayed some serious talent take. The parallel with Kirby is a good one.
Moore, OTOH, seems to me like a man whose conscious worldview is at odds with his deep instincts--his political preachments (and generally execrable Kantian and Hegelian outlook) are usually eclipsed by his instinct for story, characterization, and artistic integrity. It was a fascinating dynamic to watch unfold as I worked my way through his ouvre.
Fantastic and very satisfying takedown of Kant, but I would say that as I've been on a bit of an anti-Kantian kick since...well, birth.
Fun little fact about Gaiman's novel American Gods (his last one that, IMO, was at all readable): It is essentially a non-satirical rewrite of Douglas Adams's (far superior) The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul.
The contrasts between Adams and Gaiman (who wrote Adams's biography) are interesting and instructive on the Kantian angle, as Adams's entire body of work is playing with the integration of science and aethetics while Gaiman's work starts out puzzling over their intersection (his early short stories, especially) and then gradually moving further and further into the dissociation between the two, first fancying himself a CS Lewis-like figure, and then moving further out attempting to recapitulate pagan mythology without actually understanding how any of it works (even on a Jungian level). As he's developed, he's blow right past "gnosticism" into "hipster shallow," a punk aesthetic without any of the punk rebel spirit. It's been a dismaying course to watch an a man who once displayed some serious talent take. The parallel with Kirby is a good one.
Moore, OTOH, seems to me like a man whose conscious worldview is at odds with his deep instincts--his political preachments (and generally execrable Kantian and Hegelian outlook) are usually eclipsed by his instinct for story, characterization, and artistic integrity. It was a fascinating dynamic to watch unfold as I worked my way through his ouvre.
Extraordinarily rich read and you covered a lot of distance. I’m honored to be included in your discussion. I liked the critical lens you viewed Kant.
Michaela, I have to buckle up for this read. Later tonight! It looks crazy fascinating from my first glance.
ok, this was a fun read
try to imagine for a moment
all of the ideas you present
detached for each "PERSONALITY"
just break each segment apart
and throw them all into a bag
shake them up
and dump them out on a table