COLIN WIGHT wrote:
> >
> >Why does Colin Wight continue to want someone else to take his moral
> >decisions for him?
>
> Did I say that? Please elaborate how you managed to extract such a perverse
> reading from my post. I am more than happy to make my own decisions, the
> point is I do not make them in an intellectual vacuum and Foucualt helps me
> not one jot on this particular issue. Which is not to say he doesn't help in
> others.
>
What you said was
> But the threat is real and those demanding a voice intend to silence other
> voices. How to silence such a voice ethically and with sensitivity? I don't
> know, but what I do know is that Foucault provides me with no intellectual
> resources to help make my decision.
Yes, I was being somewhat facetious, but then you keep posting basically
the same point over and over, no matter how many people point out that
it is irrelevant to Foucault. Clearly F. is not just descriptive, but
that doesn't make him prescriptive, nor should it. The fact that you
expect that F. _should_ contribute something to your decision-making
(and not a trafiic warden, for instance) suggests that there is
something about the nature of his activity that _ought_ to lead to such
contributions. Why? Also, are you saying that F. doesn't occupy any
space in your intellectual world, or simply not one which you consider
'helpful'? The point is, if he has altered the shape of that space,
then he might consider his job done, whether or not this was in the form
of guidelines or moral injunctions would be irrelevant. Doesn't F.'s
work essentially consist of changing the limits of the sayable and
thinkable? If he fails in this then that is the most damning critique.
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >Why does Colin Wight continue to want someone else to take his moral
> >decisions for him?
>
> Did I say that? Please elaborate how you managed to extract such a perverse
> reading from my post. I am more than happy to make my own decisions, the
> point is I do not make them in an intellectual vacuum and Foucualt helps me
> not one jot on this particular issue. Which is not to say he doesn't help in
> others.
>
What you said was
> But the threat is real and those demanding a voice intend to silence other
> voices. How to silence such a voice ethically and with sensitivity? I don't
> know, but what I do know is that Foucault provides me with no intellectual
> resources to help make my decision.
Yes, I was being somewhat facetious, but then you keep posting basically
the same point over and over, no matter how many people point out that
it is irrelevant to Foucault. Clearly F. is not just descriptive, but
that doesn't make him prescriptive, nor should it. The fact that you
expect that F. _should_ contribute something to your decision-making
(and not a trafiic warden, for instance) suggests that there is
something about the nature of his activity that _ought_ to lead to such
contributions. Why? Also, are you saying that F. doesn't occupy any
space in your intellectual world, or simply not one which you consider
'helpful'? The point is, if he has altered the shape of that space,
then he might consider his job done, whether or not this was in the form
of guidelines or moral injunctions would be irrelevant. Doesn't F.'s
work essentially consist of changing the limits of the sayable and
thinkable? If he fails in this then that is the most damning critique.
Murray
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx