malgosia askanas wrote:
>Well, the statement is about philosophy, not about labor statistics.
>It's been quoted several times before, so I abbreved it; but the full
>quote is: "... the appearance of sexuality as a fundamental problem
>marks the transformation of a philosophy of man as worker to a
>philosophy based on a being who speaks". So some of the questions that
>come to mind: In what sense (if any) is this true? And if it is true,
>why this disparity between philosophy and labor statistics?
Yes, I'm familiar with the quote, and the argument it condenses. It just
strikes me as utter nonsense. It seems to have more to do with F's own
psycho-intellectual battle with Marx and Althusser than it does with
actually existing social reality. It also seems symptomatic of F's habit of
exaggerating historical breaks. "Economics" is a 19th century concern, etc.
The psychoanalyst Paul Schilder once lamented the lack of a psychoanalysis
of work.
>I didn't mean "prior" in a chronological sense. I meant it in the same sense
>in which you say that the reason you think people won't murder each other
>is because you're a kind of humanist; it doesn't mean that your humanism
>precedes the belief chronologically. But I am also curious: if your
>early lived experience was shaped by tales of hell, then isn't humanism
>a kind of estrangement from that?
Damn straight. Though I will confess that I was, and continue to be,
influenced by the cheek-turning aspects of Christian morality.
Doug
>Well, the statement is about philosophy, not about labor statistics.
>It's been quoted several times before, so I abbreved it; but the full
>quote is: "... the appearance of sexuality as a fundamental problem
>marks the transformation of a philosophy of man as worker to a
>philosophy based on a being who speaks". So some of the questions that
>come to mind: In what sense (if any) is this true? And if it is true,
>why this disparity between philosophy and labor statistics?
Yes, I'm familiar with the quote, and the argument it condenses. It just
strikes me as utter nonsense. It seems to have more to do with F's own
psycho-intellectual battle with Marx and Althusser than it does with
actually existing social reality. It also seems symptomatic of F's habit of
exaggerating historical breaks. "Economics" is a 19th century concern, etc.
The psychoanalyst Paul Schilder once lamented the lack of a psychoanalysis
of work.
>I didn't mean "prior" in a chronological sense. I meant it in the same sense
>in which you say that the reason you think people won't murder each other
>is because you're a kind of humanist; it doesn't mean that your humanism
>precedes the belief chronologically. But I am also curious: if your
>early lived experience was shaped by tales of hell, then isn't humanism
>a kind of estrangement from that?
Damn straight. Though I will confess that I was, and continue to be,
influenced by the cheek-turning aspects of Christian morality.
Doug