On Tue, 23 Jan 1996, malgosia askanas wrote:
> I personally find it impossible to read Kant, Hegel, Spinoza, Husserl, or
> in fact any "systematic" philosophy. I don't think, however, that this is
> a cause for pride: I rather regret this inability on my part. It wouldn't
> occur to me to sub to a Kant, Hegel or Spinoza list and waste people's time
> by insisting on the righteousness of my non-understanding. Why is it
> supposed to be appropriate to engage in this kind of self-satisfied deafness
> on a Foucault list?
>
>
> -malgosia
>
Isn't this a kind of knowledge/power discourse that foucault was intent
on revealing ? What is "appropriate" ? And how do you presume and
determine that someone's post is "self-satisfied deafness" ?
divakar
------------------