John Ransom wrote:
>But notice that A's argument will not help us with regard to the Nazis.
>That's because political philosophy is too gross a set of categories to
>micro-manage such things. Another way to put the same point is that an
>Aristotelian argument could be reasonably employed in favor of both sides
>of a debate over allowing or disallowing the Nazis to speak.
>
>So, first of all, no, I don't read F in order to develop a finer
>sensibility over how to deal with Nazis; nor, to answer your question more
>directly, have I recieved any special insight on this issue from F.
>Second, I make the broader claim that political philosophy as
>traditionally conceived is not itself crafted to deal with such issues --
>which does not mean that it is useless, but that it approaches issues on a
>different and also important level.
The point is not micromanaging. The Nazis and one's reaction to them are
about as far from micromanaging as politics can get. I am utterly
dumbfounded that a Foucault scholar can argue that a philosopher whose
major works are about various forms of political power over the centuries
is irrelevant to the analysis of and response to a totalitarian political
movement (especially one that was so adept at the use of speech and
symbols). I could almost understand if you said that Verlaine offered no
insight into Naziism, or ABBA - but Foucault? Why read him at all then? For
purely aesthetic pleasure?
I won't even bring up Nietzsche because that would be a low blow.
Doug
>But notice that A's argument will not help us with regard to the Nazis.
>That's because political philosophy is too gross a set of categories to
>micro-manage such things. Another way to put the same point is that an
>Aristotelian argument could be reasonably employed in favor of both sides
>of a debate over allowing or disallowing the Nazis to speak.
>
>So, first of all, no, I don't read F in order to develop a finer
>sensibility over how to deal with Nazis; nor, to answer your question more
>directly, have I recieved any special insight on this issue from F.
>Second, I make the broader claim that political philosophy as
>traditionally conceived is not itself crafted to deal with such issues --
>which does not mean that it is useless, but that it approaches issues on a
>different and also important level.
The point is not micromanaging. The Nazis and one's reaction to them are
about as far from micromanaging as politics can get. I am utterly
dumbfounded that a Foucault scholar can argue that a philosopher whose
major works are about various forms of political power over the centuries
is irrelevant to the analysis of and response to a totalitarian political
movement (especially one that was so adept at the use of speech and
symbols). I could almost understand if you said that Verlaine offered no
insight into Naziism, or ABBA - but Foucault? Why read him at all then? For
purely aesthetic pleasure?
I won't even bring up Nietzsche because that would be a low blow.
Doug