'm'
Oh come on, you can surely do better than this. You are right I did say:
>
>> But it seems you do have some idea of Doug's usage of the term, and if
>> Foucault rejects this usage what then provides the moral grounds for acting.
>> I mean, why not 'prefer the destruction of the world to my little finger',
>> as one wag once put it? (Hume actually).
And you reply:
>
>Ah, the "hint hint nudge nudge know what I mean" approach to philosophy!
>I'll let Doug speak for his own usage. I also have no idea if Foucault
>"rejects" this usage, I just suspect that he uses the term differently
>than Doug does.
But, and oh my god it is a big Buuuuut, this was in reply to you saying that
you didn't know how Doug was using then term humanism, BUT then went on,
(and yes there is the rather big BUT) to say:
>since Doug seems to assign to
>it some kind of primary role as our internal moral guide,
My point was that this revealed that you were already working with a
preconcieved idea of what Doug thought the term meant and this was
colo(u)ring you posts.
>
>I think, BTW, that we need a FAQ for this list. The list is constantly
>answering (or refusing to answer for the umptieth time) the same questions
>from people who get on the list because they heard some scandalizing
>tidbit about "pomo" and want to have some fun.
Well if the pomos do not subscribe to these scandalising tidbits, then maybe
they should clear up the confusions, shouldn't they? Oh no, I do not expect
them to for one minute however, since to do so would: (i) open up their
position to arguments; and, (ii) would undercut some of the ground they
claim to occupy in order to critique other positions. This point does bring
us right back to a discussion we had weeks ago, in that at this point the
poor embattled pomo argues, 'but I can't tell you, really I would like to,
but your commiting epistemic violence on me man!'.
> Or maybe we need a
>"foucault-intro" list,
Which would do what? provide the authoritative account of Foucault I
presume? I think, 'm' you have totally missed the point. Underlying all of
your posts is the presumption that you 'know' the real Foucault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, you can surely do better than this. You are right I did say:
>
>> But it seems you do have some idea of Doug's usage of the term, and if
>> Foucault rejects this usage what then provides the moral grounds for acting.
>> I mean, why not 'prefer the destruction of the world to my little finger',
>> as one wag once put it? (Hume actually).
And you reply:
>
>Ah, the "hint hint nudge nudge know what I mean" approach to philosophy!
>I'll let Doug speak for his own usage. I also have no idea if Foucault
>"rejects" this usage, I just suspect that he uses the term differently
>than Doug does.
But, and oh my god it is a big Buuuuut, this was in reply to you saying that
you didn't know how Doug was using then term humanism, BUT then went on,
(and yes there is the rather big BUT) to say:
>since Doug seems to assign to
>it some kind of primary role as our internal moral guide,
My point was that this revealed that you were already working with a
preconcieved idea of what Doug thought the term meant and this was
colo(u)ring you posts.
>
>I think, BTW, that we need a FAQ for this list. The list is constantly
>answering (or refusing to answer for the umptieth time) the same questions
>from people who get on the list because they heard some scandalizing
>tidbit about "pomo" and want to have some fun.
Well if the pomos do not subscribe to these scandalising tidbits, then maybe
they should clear up the confusions, shouldn't they? Oh no, I do not expect
them to for one minute however, since to do so would: (i) open up their
position to arguments; and, (ii) would undercut some of the ground they
claim to occupy in order to critique other positions. This point does bring
us right back to a discussion we had weeks ago, in that at this point the
poor embattled pomo argues, 'but I can't tell you, really I would like to,
but your commiting epistemic violence on me man!'.
> Or maybe we need a
>"foucault-intro" list,
Which would do what? provide the authoritative account of Foucault I
presume? I think, 'm' you have totally missed the point. Underlying all of
your posts is the presumption that you 'know' the real Foucault.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------