I'm not sure exactly how this is done, but I'd like to introduce myself to
this discussion. (do I do this here or somewhere else...too late now!) I'm
a student at the new school for social research, and I've worked on
Foucault's writings off and on for a few years. A big guy where I go to
school is james Miller, whose book: the passion of michel foucault pissed
off a lot of people in the continental based philosophy department for its
sensationalist celebration of MF's excessive lifestyle.
In any case, in my view Rorty's pragmatic critique of post modernism (I
know a little of his work on Foucault and Lyotard) entirely misses the
point. Rorty reads Lyotard as a good pragmatic pluralist who offers a
refreshing departure from Habermas's relentless Kantianism, but pays
unnecessarly lip service to the european avant garde tradition. Keep the
liberalism, ditch the dissensus. Pretty sad.
What specifically does he say about Foucault?
------------------
this discussion. (do I do this here or somewhere else...too late now!) I'm
a student at the new school for social research, and I've worked on
Foucault's writings off and on for a few years. A big guy where I go to
school is james Miller, whose book: the passion of michel foucault pissed
off a lot of people in the continental based philosophy department for its
sensationalist celebration of MF's excessive lifestyle.
In any case, in my view Rorty's pragmatic critique of post modernism (I
know a little of his work on Foucault and Lyotard) entirely misses the
point. Rorty reads Lyotard as a good pragmatic pluralist who offers a
refreshing departure from Habermas's relentless Kantianism, but pays
unnecessarly lip service to the european avant garde tradition. Keep the
liberalism, ditch the dissensus. Pretty sad.
What specifically does he say about Foucault?
------------------