Op 06-apr-97 schreef malgosia askanas:
>Blaine wrote:
>> I doubt that Foucault thinks it makes sense to consider what humans are
>> or are not, essentially, vis-a-vis morality. I don't think it's correct
>> to say that Foucault simply eschewed all talk of essentialism, but in
>> terms of moral essentialism, I think he wouldn't entertain any such
>> notions.
>I wouldn't defend my very dubious formulation about Foucault believing human
>beings were essentially "good"; but one reason why I left it in is that
>I think it is useful to distinguish between these kinds of beliefs and
>"essentialism". For example, a person's initial attitude towards others
>might be to assume that they have certain moral qualities. Now this does
>not mean that the person would support an effort to define the term "human",
>an inclusion in it of the possession of these qualitities, or a declaration
>that those who don't possess these qualities are somehow less human. What
>however is characteristic of the kind of belief I was referring to is that it
>is basically unfalsifiable -- that is, unaffected by disappointments.
>It is not really a "notion" that one "entertains"; rather, it is as if the
>attitude was part of the very fabric of one's being (and I speak very, very
>loosely here). And, lest somebody twist what I am saying to mean that,
>by ascribing to Foucault the "goodness" belief, I am pointing to
>an "inconsistency" or a "hypocrisy" in Foucault: nope. A refusal to engage
>in essentialism is not a denial that there are certain underlying attitudes
>to the way one conducts one's life; nor is it a denial that there may
>be a shared set of such attitudes; it is simply a refusal to engage in
>essentialism.
malgosia, you refer to a certain expectation towards others which you think is
obvious. did you ever have a conversation with religius activists, did you
ever come among people with believes and practices, you couldn't understand? i
have and for me what counted was how they thought about harming or killing me
and those who were with me. it's like a silent contract: we respect each other
and willn't harm each other. what they thought they should do towards their
opponents wasn't that important. so the dialogue starts with a person to
person relationship, not with a universal moral. you don't have to expect
others to be 'good'. why should they prefer to be what you would call'good'? i
wonder if your moral expections are realistic, it seems to me they're
falisified by CNN 24 hours a day!
many people think they have very good reasons to kill others. what reason
would they have to believe you, if you would tell them that they're immoral? i
think that you can only convince others by giving an attractive
alternative,this is one way to understand the transformation from ethics into
esthetics. i think baudrillard had a point when he advocated the force of
seduction, foucault has replaced power by seduction here.
erikh
>Blaine wrote:
>> I doubt that Foucault thinks it makes sense to consider what humans are
>> or are not, essentially, vis-a-vis morality. I don't think it's correct
>> to say that Foucault simply eschewed all talk of essentialism, but in
>> terms of moral essentialism, I think he wouldn't entertain any such
>> notions.
>I wouldn't defend my very dubious formulation about Foucault believing human
>beings were essentially "good"; but one reason why I left it in is that
>I think it is useful to distinguish between these kinds of beliefs and
>"essentialism". For example, a person's initial attitude towards others
>might be to assume that they have certain moral qualities. Now this does
>not mean that the person would support an effort to define the term "human",
>an inclusion in it of the possession of these qualitities, or a declaration
>that those who don't possess these qualities are somehow less human. What
>however is characteristic of the kind of belief I was referring to is that it
>is basically unfalsifiable -- that is, unaffected by disappointments.
>It is not really a "notion" that one "entertains"; rather, it is as if the
>attitude was part of the very fabric of one's being (and I speak very, very
>loosely here). And, lest somebody twist what I am saying to mean that,
>by ascribing to Foucault the "goodness" belief, I am pointing to
>an "inconsistency" or a "hypocrisy" in Foucault: nope. A refusal to engage
>in essentialism is not a denial that there are certain underlying attitudes
>to the way one conducts one's life; nor is it a denial that there may
>be a shared set of such attitudes; it is simply a refusal to engage in
>essentialism.
malgosia, you refer to a certain expectation towards others which you think is
obvious. did you ever have a conversation with religius activists, did you
ever come among people with believes and practices, you couldn't understand? i
have and for me what counted was how they thought about harming or killing me
and those who were with me. it's like a silent contract: we respect each other
and willn't harm each other. what they thought they should do towards their
opponents wasn't that important. so the dialogue starts with a person to
person relationship, not with a universal moral. you don't have to expect
others to be 'good'. why should they prefer to be what you would call'good'? i
wonder if your moral expections are realistic, it seems to me they're
falisified by CNN 24 hours a day!
many people think they have very good reasons to kill others. what reason
would they have to believe you, if you would tell them that they're immoral? i
think that you can only convince others by giving an attractive
alternative,this is one way to understand the transformation from ethics into
esthetics. i think baudrillard had a point when he advocated the force of
seduction, foucault has replaced power by seduction here.
erikh