Foucault is quite explicit that he is more familiar with the later Heidegger
in 'The Return of Morality', his last interview. He says there, 'I
practically don't know Being and Time'. That might be true, but he certainly
knew the early Heidegger: he translated Binswanger, studied under
Merleau-Ponty - in fact the whole climate of French philosophy in Foucault's
youth was Heideggerian, meaning *early* Heieggerian. But this was precisely
the philosophy he was proximally concerned to reject.
On 8/11/04 20:09, "Kevin Turner" <k_turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's a good point...
> Also, I have read somewhere, which escapes me now, that Foucault had never
> read, or at least was not familiar with, Being and Time.
> I don't know how accurate this is, but it would suggest that it was the
> later Heidegger that Foucault was more acquainted with.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
] On Behalf Of Mark Kelly
> Sent: 08 November 2004 02:55
> To: Foucault List
> Subject: Re: actualité
> It seems to me that there's a hefty ahsitorical element to Heidegger's Being
> and Time analytic of Dasein which makes it inimical to Foucault, who sees
> subjectivity as historically constituted in a much stronger sense than the
> early Heidegger. At least that's what I'm arguing in my thesis at present
> Possibly there's a great answer to this in Stuart's book, but I've left it
> at home.
> On 7/11/04 21:46, "Kevin Turner" <k_turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Having slept on it, I'm inclined to agree with you. I too think that
>> I am probably pushing things a bit too much here; especially the
>> relation between Dasein and actualité. Maybe I inadvertently stumbled
>> upon the limits to all of this when I noted that each is merely
>> addressing a related question: what are we now!
>> Regards - Kevin.
> This message is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com
> Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 01/11/2004