Re: epistemic violence

Erik wrote:


>what's wrong with violence? thinking is violent, philosophy is violent: it
>kills stupid thoughts (poor things!). the problem is: if you're afraid of
>violence you avoid your opponent and you take a projection of her instead.
>that's safe, that doesn't hurt. so you start a monologue, you don't care a
>damn thing about what someone else's got to say as long as you can convince
>yourself that your right. Charles Taylor f.i. thinks he's right because he's
>trying to rescue western civilisation and has the pope's blessing, so he
>doesn't want to understand Foucault's position. he's not violent enough
>because he doesn't attack F, but makes himself looking good by taking instead
>a dummy of F he made for himself.

Oh how I agree (second guess my intentions here). But why stop at verbal
violence, lets go the whole hog and just give silly old Foucault, or Taylor
for that matter, a swift bullet through the head. I mean, we can extend this
to any group we disagree with, Non?. 'What's wrong with violence?' Get a life.

(End of polemical transmission)........(or is it)....Start rolling credits
and begin music from the "Outer Limits".........


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA

--------------------------------------------------------




Partial thread listing: