Morten Lyngeng wrote:
>
> Hello everybody!
>
> I got some sort of moral problems here.
> In his last interview (printed in M.F. Politics, philosophy, culture.
> 1988), Foucault says: "That the search for a form of morality acceptable to
> everybody in the sence that everyone should submit to it, strikes me as
> catastrophic". (253-4)>
Hello. I don't understand the nature of your moral problem, as founded
on the social implications generated from the above Foucault qoute. To
me, it seems that Foucault was saying that morality should not be
communal. Rather that one should not demand of another commensurable
ethical standards. By the reasoning of his statement, you have been
absolved of any moral dilemmas arising from ideological conflicts. In
fact, this point could be used to criticize his assertion.
The main question which strikes me here, is how can such an
ethic be
> applicable in modern societies without becoming elitistic? Foucault refers
> to "the question of style in antiquity - stylization of the relation to
> oneself, style of conduct, stylization of the relation to others". (244)
> This 'Style of Existence' resembles the kind of ethics Nietzsche formulated
> for the kind of being which should overcome modern man. To me, this is a
> kind of ethics which is unaccessible for human beings already shaped by the
> techniques of morality imposed on them through a culture in which they
> 'always-already' exists.
Do you mean "elitist"? Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Foucault's
rejection of a standard of morality negates the possibility of an
elitist ethic becoming a problem. Review his qoute: "...in the sense
tht everyone should submit to it...." Since he had rejected the notion
of some people submitting to the morality of other people, how does it
follow that this form of ethic would or might become a reality in the
form of elitism?
I have no further comments to make.
> Foucault never mentioned some "übermensch" that should surpass us, and
> this could imply that his kind of aesthetical ethics should be applicable
> for us today. I'm aware of that Foucault never had the time to end his
> ethical inquiries which he started in 'The use of pleasure' and 'The care
> of the self'', but it seems to me that he schetches up an ethics which
> emphasizes a conduct where the individual takes control over, and
> experiments with, his own subjectivization. But I still wonder how this
> 'self-constitution of the subject' can overcome the moral 'life-world' we
> already live in? I just can't accept a solution where Foucault's ethics is
> reduced to som 'pseudo-psychological self-development program' for people
> or groups who can't cope with society's normalized kind of conduct!
>
> ML
>
> Hello everybody!
>
> I got some sort of moral problems here.
> In his last interview (printed in M.F. Politics, philosophy, culture.
> 1988), Foucault says: "That the search for a form of morality acceptable to
> everybody in the sence that everyone should submit to it, strikes me as
> catastrophic". (253-4)>
Hello. I don't understand the nature of your moral problem, as founded
on the social implications generated from the above Foucault qoute. To
me, it seems that Foucault was saying that morality should not be
communal. Rather that one should not demand of another commensurable
ethical standards. By the reasoning of his statement, you have been
absolved of any moral dilemmas arising from ideological conflicts. In
fact, this point could be used to criticize his assertion.
The main question which strikes me here, is how can such an
ethic be
> applicable in modern societies without becoming elitistic? Foucault refers
> to "the question of style in antiquity - stylization of the relation to
> oneself, style of conduct, stylization of the relation to others". (244)
> This 'Style of Existence' resembles the kind of ethics Nietzsche formulated
> for the kind of being which should overcome modern man. To me, this is a
> kind of ethics which is unaccessible for human beings already shaped by the
> techniques of morality imposed on them through a culture in which they
> 'always-already' exists.
Do you mean "elitist"? Perhaps I misunderstand your point. Foucault's
rejection of a standard of morality negates the possibility of an
elitist ethic becoming a problem. Review his qoute: "...in the sense
tht everyone should submit to it...." Since he had rejected the notion
of some people submitting to the morality of other people, how does it
follow that this form of ethic would or might become a reality in the
form of elitism?
I have no further comments to make.
> Foucault never mentioned some "übermensch" that should surpass us, and
> this could imply that his kind of aesthetical ethics should be applicable
> for us today. I'm aware of that Foucault never had the time to end his
> ethical inquiries which he started in 'The use of pleasure' and 'The care
> of the self'', but it seems to me that he schetches up an ethics which
> emphasizes a conduct where the individual takes control over, and
> experiments with, his own subjectivization. But I still wonder how this
> 'self-constitution of the subject' can overcome the moral 'life-world' we
> already live in? I just can't accept a solution where Foucault's ethics is
> reduced to som 'pseudo-psychological self-development program' for people
> or groups who can't cope with society's normalized kind of conduct!
>
> ML