did any of you types who are what Switala terms "philosophically
aware" ever hear of hubris? There's something truly frightening
about the way in which you all patrol this list, passing judgement
about who is worthy to interpret the great man--who conveniently
cannot make his own views heard. The balderdash on Chiapas was
bad enough, but when you Foucultists start in with the abuse
of Miller and reasoning along the lines of "if ideas are
accepted so readily then they are not being understood", as
Katz claims, then it's time to stand back and question just
what is going here. Foucault was a philosopher so only
professionally trained philosophers can collect the full
set of his baseball cards, is that it? You should remember
that it was the Great Bald One himself who tried hard to
make his ideas popular, who took part in political activites,
who gave interviews--he did not spend his time trying to
act as a gatekeeper or apologist for others. Am I the
only one who reads this parade of self-satisfied messages
who is actually trying to use Foucault to enrich his or
her research, as opposed to reading it because one thinks one can?
Abby, sign me "philosophically challenged and proud of it".
------------------