From: Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 14:22:31 -0500 (EST)
On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Neil Harvey wrote:
> I have read some of the contributions that would silence or aim to silence
> some of the critcism of this enlightened man. I would really hate to think
> that criticism in itself was in the process of being censored by a special
> group with a typical human purpose. Self aggrandisement comes to mind.
> Wankery is another.
Are you referring to contributions to this listserv? I don't think anyone
wants to "silence" criticism of anyone--what has been up for discussion is
the value of replying to critics. One can take a critic seriously without
replying; silence, as Ian alluded to, can be a sign of respect (among many
other things, of course).
An important thing to keep in mind is the spirit in which the criticism is
made, and the kind of relationship one expects to be able to have with
one's critic if one is drawn into an exchange. A while ago on the
Habermas listserv, someone complained about the way Habermas chooses to
reply to some critics and not to others. But the explanation of that is
easy: Habermas replies to those critics with whom he thinks he can have a
genuine conversation. It is probably the case that Foucault thought he
could not have a genuine conversation with someone who had written a book
the title of which called on the public to forget about him--an exchange
with Baudrillard, like the exchange with Derrida, might well have amounted
only to a battle of wills.
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Yes - Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside.
That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside."