Erik D. Lindberg writes:
>Thomas's response may be the best one yet to one of the innaugural
>questions of this thread: why the turn toward ethics. Without the Truth
>(as a link between reality and justice), one needs (if one is to act)
>something like an ethos (situated, perhaps, half way between the dream of
>Truth and "mere" opinion or empathetic inclination).
Yes, but doesn't this again raise the question of why Foucault's ethics
deals one's relationship with one's self and not necessarily (or directly at
least) other people. Compare, for example, with the deconstructive ethics
of Levinas in which the non-thematizable Other leads to a radical,
pre-cognitive responsibility.
------------------
>Thomas's response may be the best one yet to one of the innaugural
>questions of this thread: why the turn toward ethics. Without the Truth
>(as a link between reality and justice), one needs (if one is to act)
>something like an ethos (situated, perhaps, half way between the dream of
>Truth and "mere" opinion or empathetic inclination).
Yes, but doesn't this again raise the question of why Foucault's ethics
deals one's relationship with one's self and not necessarily (or directly at
least) other people. Compare, for example, with the deconstructive ethics
of Levinas in which the non-thematizable Other leads to a radical,
pre-cognitive responsibility.
------------------