Op 06-apr-97 schreef Morten Lyngeng:
>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)
>The main question which strikes me here, is how can such an ethic be
>applicable in modern societies without becoming elitistic? Foucault refe=
rs
>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 formula=
ted
>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.
>Foucault never mentioned some "=FCbermensch" that should surpass us, and=
>this could imply that his kind of aesthetical ethics should be applicabl=
e
>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 car=
e
>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' w=
e
>already live in? I just can't accept a solution where Foucault's ethics =
is
>reduced to som 'pseudo-psychological self-development program' for peopl=
e
>or groups who can't cope with society's normalized kind of conduct!
i don't see that danger. in fact hindu, buddhist, taoist and ancient gree=
k
ethics are much closer to the nietzschean and foucaultian concept then th=
e
average western contemperary moral. i think that nietzsche was strongly
inspired by stoic and sceptic ethics. sartre's existentialism may have do=
ne a
lot for the young foucault. it all boiles down to overcome the human
condition, which is the bastion of slave moral. the hindu sadhu, the budd=
hist
arhat, the advanced sceptic, they all say: 'i'm better then human' and
therefore my being here with humans is gift to them. this is what nietzsc=
he
also must have felt. while humans chatter about human rights, and about w=
hat
more the can demand, instead of what the can provide by themselves for
themselves and others, those persons try to achieve or maintain a superio=
r
state of selffulfilment. =
there's nothing psychological about that. that was huxley's mistake. he
thought that you could as it were 'get there' by means of a special treat=
ment
or even a drug. if that were the case it would be pseudo-psychology. this=
is
not the case however. in fact it's pure and plain philosophy, because it =
comes
by means of existential insight or reflexive understanding. since socrate=
s and
during the early middle ages every reflexive path to self elevation was c=
alled
philosophy. the christian theologians changed it and turned philosophy in=
to a
technique of text manpulation, calling it the 'servant of theology'. the,=
at
the time exclusively christian, means of selfelevation was hence called
mysticism, perhaps not so much because of the unspeakable secrets, but ma=
inly
because many mystics were not allowed to elaborate on their views. and of=
course it's 'elitistic': if you want to be better then yourself, you cann=
ot
avoid to be better than the everage albanian or phrenobarber! =
the anti-elitistic moral is pure hypocricy. if you want to earn more than=
your
neighbours it's ok, you may even try to beat others in sports, but you're=
not
allowed to be a better person, to have a deeper understanding and a super=
iour
moral! why? because the christian slave bets his/her life on the illusion=
that
s/he knows god's point of view and that from that point of view we must a=
ll be
equal. so if you want to be equal, take your moral from any tv-talkshow.
foucault doesn't mention the uebermensch a lot, but instead he says that =
the
concept of man as a moral and ontological value will disappear by itself.=
this
is not strange in any way, in fact if you ask a hindu now about his moral=
, you
will not hear him speak about humans, but about casts, groups of saints a=
nd
gods. also in the middle ages 'man' was an insignificant category.
you say that we're in a moral discourse (a more foucaultian experssion fo=
r
'lebenswelt', don't take heidegger too seriously: most of us had to pass
through this stage), but we're not obliged to agree. we can choose, we ca=
n
become a voice in the dialogue. we cannot be sure in advance that we're r=
ight.
there's no book with all the answeres. we can experiment and develop our =
style
of living, is that pseudo-psychologic? only if some would look for defini=
ty
answeres and then exclusively in psychlogy and psychotherapy, if that per=
son
would not reflect on him/herself.
so nothing personal, this just a voice in the discourse, have fun with it=
!
erikh=
>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)
>The main question which strikes me here, is how can such an ethic be
>applicable in modern societies without becoming elitistic? Foucault refe=
rs
>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 formula=
ted
>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.
>Foucault never mentioned some "=FCbermensch" that should surpass us, and=
>this could imply that his kind of aesthetical ethics should be applicabl=
e
>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 car=
e
>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' w=
e
>already live in? I just can't accept a solution where Foucault's ethics =
is
>reduced to som 'pseudo-psychological self-development program' for peopl=
e
>or groups who can't cope with society's normalized kind of conduct!
i don't see that danger. in fact hindu, buddhist, taoist and ancient gree=
k
ethics are much closer to the nietzschean and foucaultian concept then th=
e
average western contemperary moral. i think that nietzsche was strongly
inspired by stoic and sceptic ethics. sartre's existentialism may have do=
ne a
lot for the young foucault. it all boiles down to overcome the human
condition, which is the bastion of slave moral. the hindu sadhu, the budd=
hist
arhat, the advanced sceptic, they all say: 'i'm better then human' and
therefore my being here with humans is gift to them. this is what nietzsc=
he
also must have felt. while humans chatter about human rights, and about w=
hat
more the can demand, instead of what the can provide by themselves for
themselves and others, those persons try to achieve or maintain a superio=
r
state of selffulfilment. =
there's nothing psychological about that. that was huxley's mistake. he
thought that you could as it were 'get there' by means of a special treat=
ment
or even a drug. if that were the case it would be pseudo-psychology. this=
is
not the case however. in fact it's pure and plain philosophy, because it =
comes
by means of existential insight or reflexive understanding. since socrate=
s and
during the early middle ages every reflexive path to self elevation was c=
alled
philosophy. the christian theologians changed it and turned philosophy in=
to a
technique of text manpulation, calling it the 'servant of theology'. the,=
at
the time exclusively christian, means of selfelevation was hence called
mysticism, perhaps not so much because of the unspeakable secrets, but ma=
inly
because many mystics were not allowed to elaborate on their views. and of=
course it's 'elitistic': if you want to be better then yourself, you cann=
ot
avoid to be better than the everage albanian or phrenobarber! =
the anti-elitistic moral is pure hypocricy. if you want to earn more than=
your
neighbours it's ok, you may even try to beat others in sports, but you're=
not
allowed to be a better person, to have a deeper understanding and a super=
iour
moral! why? because the christian slave bets his/her life on the illusion=
that
s/he knows god's point of view and that from that point of view we must a=
ll be
equal. so if you want to be equal, take your moral from any tv-talkshow.
foucault doesn't mention the uebermensch a lot, but instead he says that =
the
concept of man as a moral and ontological value will disappear by itself.=
this
is not strange in any way, in fact if you ask a hindu now about his moral=
, you
will not hear him speak about humans, but about casts, groups of saints a=
nd
gods. also in the middle ages 'man' was an insignificant category.
you say that we're in a moral discourse (a more foucaultian experssion fo=
r
'lebenswelt', don't take heidegger too seriously: most of us had to pass
through this stage), but we're not obliged to agree. we can choose, we ca=
n
become a voice in the dialogue. we cannot be sure in advance that we're r=
ight.
there's no book with all the answeres. we can experiment and develop our =
style
of living, is that pseudo-psychologic? only if some would look for defini=
ty
answeres and then exclusively in psychlogy and psychotherapy, if that per=
son
would not reflect on him/herself.
so nothing personal, this just a voice in the discourse, have fun with it=
!
erikh=