From: John Ransom <ransom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 11:58:45 -0500 (EST)
On Sat, 7 Mar 1998, R.H. Albright wrote:
> Ian Robert Douglas quotes: Gilles Deleuze in 1986 with:
> > "Is there something 'dangerous' in Foucault's thought
> > that also explains the passion it continues to arouse?"
> > - "Dangerous, yes, because there's a violence in Foucault.
> > An intense violence, mastered, controlled, and turned
> > into courage."
> To which I also add this post-mortem "danger" from William James:
> "The mood of a Schopenhauer or a Nietzsche,-- and in a less degree
> one may sometimes say the same of our own sad Carlyle,-- though often an
> ennobling sadness, is almost as often only peevishness running away with
> the bit between its teeth. The sallies of the two German authors remind
> one, half the time, of the sick shriekings of two dying rats. They lack the
> purgatorial note which religious sadness gives forth."
> ---from "Circumscription of the Topic",
> _The Varieties of Religious Experience_
And is James recommending them (Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) or not? If
they sound like sick shriekings of dying rats, does that mean we're not
supposed to listen to them, or that one must shriek like a dying rat if
one has anything of interest to say? Is he recommending them because they
lack the purgatorial note, or criticizing them for not sounding it?
My personal ultra-favorite book on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer is Simmel's
aptly titled _Schopenhauer and Nietzsche_. A very very close second is
Nishanti's book on European nihilism.
> Frank Lentricchia still raises valid concerns about the dangers (and
> limitations) of both Foucault's and James's thought in his now 10 year old
> book, _Ariel and the Police, Michel Foucault, William James, Wallace
> Stevens_. If James goes too Ariel-like at times, the suffocating world
> created by Foucault lends itself to these dangers:
What suffocating world? Where does he create a suffocating world? Do you
mean he describes a suffocating world? I deny he either creates or
describes a suffocating world. Foucault is not a member of the Frankfurt
School. If we wanted to read about a closed, totally administered society,
we wouldn't need Foucault, and he wouldn't have needed to write. And are
these dangers in the sense of "to be avoided" or dangers in the sense of
"this is what we must go through"?