>> The key question I have yet to have answered is when might a Foucautian act
>> and why?
>
>But you are still assuming that without F., or any other philosopher we
>will not be able to act? F. will not provide the rationale for this or
>that action, or the drawing of ethical lines, I don't think anyone is
>really disputing this. Does this paralyse we 'Foucaultians'? I don't
>think so. If we need philosophers to tell us why we should oppose
>fascism then we really are in trouble.
No I am not Murray, why do you consistently pursue this. the point is that
we have Foucault. it is not a question of thinking or acting with or
without him. Foucault's thoughts are of this world. But yes, I do that that
Foucaultians are paraylsed and that to act you have to become
not-Foucaultians. That is. you must engage in theory-practice inconsistency.
Does this matter? Well the truth value of a philosophy that can't be put
into practice must at least be put in doubt. Check out Marx 2nd thesis on
feuerbach and even Foucault himself on truth and its relation to practice.
On your other point, I simply do not accept the point that only an
intellectual can tell an intellectual what or what not to do, and i extend
this to my own life as well. My practices are susceptible to critique by
others even though the others are not me.
Thanks,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------