I understand your point about ad hominem argument here, but neither
Foucault's homosexuality nor Rorty's often disconcerting resemblance
to Homer Simpson could be considered "great errors," certainly not in
the same sense that we consider complicity with the Nazis a
"great error." Though I don't "disregard" Heidegger by any means,
the fact that the man, Martin Heidegger, was a National Socialist, is
worthy of consideration and vigilant suspicion.
> I agree with Kevin here. Calling Rorty a "fat slob" would be like
> dismissing Foucault as "that faggot philosopher who didn't believe in truth
> and deserved to get AIDS," or disregarding Heidigger because of his "great
> error", i.e. his misapprehension of National Socialism. It's what one calls
> an argument ad hominem (against the man), perhaps the lowest form of
> argumentation.
>
> Dan Harrison
> FSU Sociology
> Tallahassee, FL 32036-2011
>
> At 08:31 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >I know this is a Foucault discussion group, but I do think that this is a
> >misrepresentation of Rorty's position. In fact, his democratic pluralism
> >is an attempt to expand the signifier of `we' as widely as possible.
> >Hence the importance of literature and journalism in his work which he
> >sees as providing for the ability to see things from the perspective of
> >the `other'.
> >
> >It also seems a little foolhardy to suggest that Rorty's position within
> >the academic hierarchy has everything to do with his academic claims. We
> >should not forget the privileged position Foucault acquired within the
> >French academy.
> >
> >Kevin D. Haggerty - haggerty@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >University of British Columbia, Dept. of Anthropology/Sociology
> >On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Joe Cronin wrote:
> >
> >> I think Richard Rorty is a fat slob. His advocation of
> >> pluralism is nothing but a whiny defense of teh "democratic"
> >> structures that have kept his belly full for a number of
> >> years. (as long as you ask). The "we" he has in mind are
> >> teh bureaucratic elite - and fortunately, there is very
> >> little of this "wee" in Foucault's work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Foucault's homosexuality nor Rorty's often disconcerting resemblance
to Homer Simpson could be considered "great errors," certainly not in
the same sense that we consider complicity with the Nazis a
"great error." Though I don't "disregard" Heidegger by any means,
the fact that the man, Martin Heidegger, was a National Socialist, is
worthy of consideration and vigilant suspicion.
> I agree with Kevin here. Calling Rorty a "fat slob" would be like
> dismissing Foucault as "that faggot philosopher who didn't believe in truth
> and deserved to get AIDS," or disregarding Heidigger because of his "great
> error", i.e. his misapprehension of National Socialism. It's what one calls
> an argument ad hominem (against the man), perhaps the lowest form of
> argumentation.
>
> Dan Harrison
> FSU Sociology
> Tallahassee, FL 32036-2011
>
> At 08:31 AM 4/4/96 -0800, you wrote:
> >I know this is a Foucault discussion group, but I do think that this is a
> >misrepresentation of Rorty's position. In fact, his democratic pluralism
> >is an attempt to expand the signifier of `we' as widely as possible.
> >Hence the importance of literature and journalism in his work which he
> >sees as providing for the ability to see things from the perspective of
> >the `other'.
> >
> >It also seems a little foolhardy to suggest that Rorty's position within
> >the academic hierarchy has everything to do with his academic claims. We
> >should not forget the privileged position Foucault acquired within the
> >French academy.
> >
> >Kevin D. Haggerty - haggerty@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >University of British Columbia, Dept. of Anthropology/Sociology
> >On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Joe Cronin wrote:
> >
> >> I think Richard Rorty is a fat slob. His advocation of
> >> pluralism is nothing but a whiny defense of teh "democratic"
> >> structures that have kept his belly full for a number of
> >> years. (as long as you ask). The "we" he has in mind are
> >> teh bureaucratic elite - and fortunately, there is very
> >> little of this "wee" in Foucault's work.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>