Joe writes:
In Nietzsche's
> case, a geenalogy is a waging of war against Western
> religion, sceicne, rationality, and language (any quest for
> "being" in general). EvenNietzsche conducts his
> genealogical work on a braod level, seeking to root out the
> moral impulse which lies beneath Western science and
> rationality. The thrust of Nietzschean genealogy is to
> throw off certain consumptive mechanisms of power. what is
> the critical bent of Foucautldian genealogy? It's certainly
> not Nietzschean, because Nietzsche was a romantic
> naturalist, searching for a primordial "return to Life,"
> where life can only be defined as the Romantiocs defined it
> - as immediacy, as aesthesis, as raw experience that is not
> mediated by "modern" rationality, thought, language,
> "truth," culture, morality, etc. It seeks to "throw off"
> certain schemes. In Foucault's case, in his writings on the
> "specific intellectual," which Barry Smart discusses, the
> critical aim is not directed toward a global conception or
> theory, but his "genealogies" of the discipliens are
> tactics which can only be deployed on a general level, by
> "the masses" themselves.
Joe, I don't understand part of this passage. Doesn't F seek to
wage war against, at least, Western "dubious" sciences? And what about the
turn to aesthetics in the later F, is this an outgrowth of what came before
or is it a whole different F?
Perhpas if you could explain more how F's genealogies are not
Nietzschean. Doesn't F seekt o throw off certain schemes: in SP he holds
that we must find new subjectivities to throw off the old ones. And then,
here is the trick question: if F is not Nietzschean, then he must differ
>from Rorty and Lyotard: do you think his solutions better? It seems to
me,. at least in SP, that F can be read in the same mold as L and R.
Marx, in fact, makes teh saem
> types of claims - only the proletariat can "presribe
> history's task," it is not the work of the "intellectual to
> "presribe," but to describe.
Okay, I understand this is what F beleived: but what happens when
the intellectual is part of the proletariat or whatever group is being
repressed. For example, F himself was an intellectual and a homosexual:
could he not then prescribe solutions to problems or means to vote? F's
whole strategy here seems to be one of not admitting that he has no idea of
what to do. The Frankfort School beleived one had to be part of the
oppressed or at least part of their situation to prescribe: how can/does F
reply to this?
Jeff
In Nietzsche's
> case, a geenalogy is a waging of war against Western
> religion, sceicne, rationality, and language (any quest for
> "being" in general). EvenNietzsche conducts his
> genealogical work on a braod level, seeking to root out the
> moral impulse which lies beneath Western science and
> rationality. The thrust of Nietzschean genealogy is to
> throw off certain consumptive mechanisms of power. what is
> the critical bent of Foucautldian genealogy? It's certainly
> not Nietzschean, because Nietzsche was a romantic
> naturalist, searching for a primordial "return to Life,"
> where life can only be defined as the Romantiocs defined it
> - as immediacy, as aesthesis, as raw experience that is not
> mediated by "modern" rationality, thought, language,
> "truth," culture, morality, etc. It seeks to "throw off"
> certain schemes. In Foucault's case, in his writings on the
> "specific intellectual," which Barry Smart discusses, the
> critical aim is not directed toward a global conception or
> theory, but his "genealogies" of the discipliens are
> tactics which can only be deployed on a general level, by
> "the masses" themselves.
Joe, I don't understand part of this passage. Doesn't F seek to
wage war against, at least, Western "dubious" sciences? And what about the
turn to aesthetics in the later F, is this an outgrowth of what came before
or is it a whole different F?
Perhpas if you could explain more how F's genealogies are not
Nietzschean. Doesn't F seekt o throw off certain schemes: in SP he holds
that we must find new subjectivities to throw off the old ones. And then,
here is the trick question: if F is not Nietzschean, then he must differ
>from Rorty and Lyotard: do you think his solutions better? It seems to
me,. at least in SP, that F can be read in the same mold as L and R.
Marx, in fact, makes teh saem
> types of claims - only the proletariat can "presribe
> history's task," it is not the work of the "intellectual to
> "presribe," but to describe.
Okay, I understand this is what F beleived: but what happens when
the intellectual is part of the proletariat or whatever group is being
repressed. For example, F himself was an intellectual and a homosexual:
could he not then prescribe solutions to problems or means to vote? F's
whole strategy here seems to be one of not admitting that he has no idea of
what to do. The Frankfort School beleived one had to be part of the
oppressed or at least part of their situation to prescribe: how can/does F
reply to this?
Jeff