 |
 |
TS Eliot: a philosophical anthropologist T. S. Eliot, Anthropologist and Primitive William Harmon American Anthropologist New Series, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Dec., 1976), pp. 797-811 Published by: Wiley Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/675145 This might be of some help. CR ________________________________ From: Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Monday, October 7, 2013 10:47 AM Subject: Re: simple questions Rick, Sorry, my floundering memory won't pull up the name of the essay; maybe one of the two on humanism? As I dimly recollect, Eliot's comment on positivism was to the effect that it was worth exploring positivism to learn that it was a dead end. Since my own thought is that positivism gets off to a false start and therefore can only end wrong, I'm inclined to accept the dead end pronouncement. I'm not sure having a reading list from the anthropology course would reveal Eliot's take on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't exist somewhere. I think the dissertation would dissuade you on the liklihood of his taking a Jungian/Freudian angle on anthropology; //I'd guess his own inclination would have been more toward a philosophical anthropology.// Ken A On 10/7/2013 10:21 AM, Richard Seddon wrote: > Ken > > Thanks: so it was primarily epistemological. > > But I am confused by " positivism was a dead end worth exploring" > > Also at the this time Anthropology was in its birth. French Anthropology was and is almost an American Sociology (interpersonal relations) where American Anthropology was much more structural (how were societies built). Of course neither excluded the other. I am thinking that the Anthropology TSE is referring to in the 218 note is primarily a French anthropology and perhaps even more towards the Jungian/Freudian studies of myth. > > Rick Seddon > Portales,NM > [log in to unmask] >