Abstract

D'Amico's review of Castoriadis' Crossroads in the Labyrinth (Telos, 60) can be taken as a negative example of one of the book's central theses: namely, that there exists an intimate connection between sublimation and truth. In D'Amico's case, there is little of either. One is struck by the vehemence of the attack and wonders about the source of its unmediated anger. I am usually reluctant to make psychologizing arguments in public controversies. However, in this case, I feel justified in asserting that only extra-theoretical factors can account for the tone and character of the review. Whatever these factors may have been, they apparently prevented the reviewer from taking up the work in a serious fashion, as reflected not only in the failure to grapple with central theoretical issues.