Jamie:
I decided to answer you, although many people have already done it because I=
feel that it is important to exchange different points of view.=20
First I'd like to remind you that Foucault uses the french word "hazard"=
that is somewhat close to the English "chance," but it could be=
misunderstood. You've got also "chance" in french, and it is an important=
concept along Bataille's book on Nietzsche (Foucault is very well=
acquainted with this work). Sometimes we run through some translation=
problems. I wonder if the choice performed, electing "chance" to translate=
"hazard" can figure the whole semantic scope of the original word.=20
It is not really a theory of chance, meaning something achieved, that is=
being mentioned or quoted by Foucault. I see the tracks of the whole=
discussion concerning the relationship between Eternal Recurrence and Will=
to Power, elicited from Heiddeger and Deleuze.
There is also the Mallarm=E9 problem of writing and language conceived as a=
disjunctive couple, which Foucault refers to in "The Order of Things."=
Foucault is talking about a theoretical continuity that joined Mallarm=E9's=
idea of book and Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence.
Deleuze was the first (1962) to pose the problem of recurrence in thigh=
proximity to Stephane Mallarm=E9's "un coup de d=E9s". Both stated that a=
blow of dice will never abolish chance. The thought of eternal recurrence=
demands reconciliation between chance and necessity. Chance is not a mere=
attempt within the game but the ethical necessity to play, to conceive life=
as such eternally recurrent game. The dice statement in his poetry would be=
a way to understand the meaning of repetition and cycle in Nietzsche's=
philosophy.
I wonder if Foucault is not referring to the difficult problem of recurrence=
in terms of an ethical dimension that doesn't need a cycle of many times=
eternally repeated, opposed to a cosmological conception that implies on=
numerical recurrence and keeps polarity between necessity and chance. There=
is a claim to go further beyond the polarity chance-necessity, conceiving=
"hazard" as the "kair=F3s," the happy marriage of "necessity hands" and=
"dice-box of chance." This problem has been discussed on Deleuze's=
Nietzsche and Philosophy and Heidegger's Nietzsche 1. We can also trace it=
from Karl Lowith's Nietzsches Ewig Wiederkehr des Gleiches.
The attempt to master chance through the will to power does not mean that=
chance would be tamed or banished. Instead, it would be re-placed and=
re-played (Wiederspielen) again and again at higher risk.
To resume I would like to say that Foucault's assertion is, as usual, placed=
within a contemporary debate concerning nietzschean idea of the eternal=
recurrence. His subtle conceptual move should be understood as a=
contribution that doesn't focus chance or fate or hazard as opposed to=
necessity. On the other hand, we must be aware that Foucault is not longing=
to ground a real theory of chance or something alike. In a certain way,=
genealogy and history furnished him the hint to study, in a nietzschean=
manner, this problem of chance and necessity. Such theme was already=
sketched in phenomenology and french history of science, two major=
milestones for Michel Foucault's oeuvre.
Estellita-Lins, MD. Philosophy PhD.
Psychoanalysis Department - Researcher
IFF Hospital - Fiocruz - RJ - Brasil
>I've just finished reading 'Nietzsche, Genealogy, History', and came across
>a curious sentence that I was hoping that perhaps someone could explicate.
>It's on p.89 of the Foucault Reader, and is related to the concept of
>chance. Having just quoted Nietzsche as saying that there is only 'the iron
>hand of necessity shaking the dice-box of chance,' Foucault goes on to say:
>
>'Chance is not simply the drawing of lots, but raising the stakes in every
>attempt to master chance through the will to power, and giving rise to the
>risk of an even greater chance.'
>
>Now, I must admit that my knowledge of Nietzsche is a bit sketchy, and this
>may in fact be very simple - but would someone please explain to me what
>this theory of chance that Foucault is using is?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Jamie
>
>walvisch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
I decided to answer you, although many people have already done it because I=
feel that it is important to exchange different points of view.=20
First I'd like to remind you that Foucault uses the french word "hazard"=
that is somewhat close to the English "chance," but it could be=
misunderstood. You've got also "chance" in french, and it is an important=
concept along Bataille's book on Nietzsche (Foucault is very well=
acquainted with this work). Sometimes we run through some translation=
problems. I wonder if the choice performed, electing "chance" to translate=
"hazard" can figure the whole semantic scope of the original word.=20
It is not really a theory of chance, meaning something achieved, that is=
being mentioned or quoted by Foucault. I see the tracks of the whole=
discussion concerning the relationship between Eternal Recurrence and Will=
to Power, elicited from Heiddeger and Deleuze.
There is also the Mallarm=E9 problem of writing and language conceived as a=
disjunctive couple, which Foucault refers to in "The Order of Things."=
Foucault is talking about a theoretical continuity that joined Mallarm=E9's=
idea of book and Nietzsche's Eternal recurrence.
Deleuze was the first (1962) to pose the problem of recurrence in thigh=
proximity to Stephane Mallarm=E9's "un coup de d=E9s". Both stated that a=
blow of dice will never abolish chance. The thought of eternal recurrence=
demands reconciliation between chance and necessity. Chance is not a mere=
attempt within the game but the ethical necessity to play, to conceive life=
as such eternally recurrent game. The dice statement in his poetry would be=
a way to understand the meaning of repetition and cycle in Nietzsche's=
philosophy.
I wonder if Foucault is not referring to the difficult problem of recurrence=
in terms of an ethical dimension that doesn't need a cycle of many times=
eternally repeated, opposed to a cosmological conception that implies on=
numerical recurrence and keeps polarity between necessity and chance. There=
is a claim to go further beyond the polarity chance-necessity, conceiving=
"hazard" as the "kair=F3s," the happy marriage of "necessity hands" and=
"dice-box of chance." This problem has been discussed on Deleuze's=
Nietzsche and Philosophy and Heidegger's Nietzsche 1. We can also trace it=
from Karl Lowith's Nietzsches Ewig Wiederkehr des Gleiches.
The attempt to master chance through the will to power does not mean that=
chance would be tamed or banished. Instead, it would be re-placed and=
re-played (Wiederspielen) again and again at higher risk.
To resume I would like to say that Foucault's assertion is, as usual, placed=
within a contemporary debate concerning nietzschean idea of the eternal=
recurrence. His subtle conceptual move should be understood as a=
contribution that doesn't focus chance or fate or hazard as opposed to=
necessity. On the other hand, we must be aware that Foucault is not longing=
to ground a real theory of chance or something alike. In a certain way,=
genealogy and history furnished him the hint to study, in a nietzschean=
manner, this problem of chance and necessity. Such theme was already=
sketched in phenomenology and french history of science, two major=
milestones for Michel Foucault's oeuvre.
Estellita-Lins, MD. Philosophy PhD.
Psychoanalysis Department - Researcher
IFF Hospital - Fiocruz - RJ - Brasil
>I've just finished reading 'Nietzsche, Genealogy, History', and came across
>a curious sentence that I was hoping that perhaps someone could explicate.
>It's on p.89 of the Foucault Reader, and is related to the concept of
>chance. Having just quoted Nietzsche as saying that there is only 'the iron
>hand of necessity shaking the dice-box of chance,' Foucault goes on to say:
>
>'Chance is not simply the drawing of lots, but raising the stakes in every
>attempt to master chance through the will to power, and giving rise to the
>risk of an even greater chance.'
>
>Now, I must admit that my knowledge of Nietzsche is a bit sketchy, and this
>may in fact be very simple - but would someone please explain to me what
>this theory of chance that Foucault is using is?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Jamie
>
>walvisch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>