I hardly want to sacralize Foucault. For me, his philosophical weaknesses and
failures are more interesting that the stuff that can be taken up like a took
kit and applied ad libitum. Nevertheless, I find 'philopsychography' -- whether
it is directed at Foucault, Nietzsche, Quine, Russel, Heidegger or whomever to
be a sensationalistic genre that unfortunately occludes more than it reveals.
Having said that I'll say again that Miller's books is the best of the genre.
jon roffe wrote:
> Hi all
> I must say I've always been somewhat bewildered by remarks such as Reg
> Lily's (re Miller's "Passion of M.Foucault"). There certainly seems to
> be a groundswell of 'PR for Foucault' stuff around lately, as if
> Foucault's status as a deity itself(!) was being degraded by Miller, and
> others like him.
> It seems to me that one of the advantages of the notion of 'specific
> intellectual' is that it has potential to avoid the religious fervour
> that seems to spring up around prominent intellectual figures. My
> impression from his work (eg. the interview "The Masked Philosopher"),
> is that Foucault is not into this kind of sacramentalisation.
> Miller records a conversation Foucault had towards the end of his death
> with an undergraduate, and among his final words to him were, "If I die,
> don't cry for me" - so, instead, we should throw money at the foot of
> his statue?!
> I'm throwing my money in with Doug Henwood.
> P.S. May I add my thanks, John R. - great to read some interesting
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com