In his "Letter on Humanism" (November, 1946) Heidegger comments to his
interlocutor, Jean Beaufret as follows:
You ask: *Comment redonner un sens au mot 'Humanisme'?* This question
proceeds from your intention to retain the word 'humanism.' I wonder
whether this is necessary. Or is the damage caused by all such terms still
not sufficiently obvious? True, "-isms" have for a long time now been
suspect. But the market of public opinion continually demands new ones. We
are always prepared to supply the demand. Even such names as "logic,"
"ethics," and "physics" begin to flourish only when original thinking
comes to an end. [See "Letter on Humanism" in _Martin Heidegger: Basic
Writings_, Harper & Row, 1977, p. 195.]
[end quotation from Heidegger]
At one point -- can't find the darn reference -- Foucault comments that
his two favorite thinkers are Nietzsche and Heidegger, and that reading
Nietzsche alone was bad enough, but that reading the two together was a
real shock. My real question is what list colleagues make of the
connection between H and F, and why F refers to his reading of H as
producing a "shock." What kind of shock was it? The quotation above is
employed as it mirrors similar comments Foucault makes in other places,
such as "What is Enlightenment" and one or two other places where he
criticizes the commitment to humanism.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the loosely-formed question above?
If not, I'll certainly understand.
Thanks!
--John
interlocutor, Jean Beaufret as follows:
You ask: *Comment redonner un sens au mot 'Humanisme'?* This question
proceeds from your intention to retain the word 'humanism.' I wonder
whether this is necessary. Or is the damage caused by all such terms still
not sufficiently obvious? True, "-isms" have for a long time now been
suspect. But the market of public opinion continually demands new ones. We
are always prepared to supply the demand. Even such names as "logic,"
"ethics," and "physics" begin to flourish only when original thinking
comes to an end. [See "Letter on Humanism" in _Martin Heidegger: Basic
Writings_, Harper & Row, 1977, p. 195.]
[end quotation from Heidegger]
At one point -- can't find the darn reference -- Foucault comments that
his two favorite thinkers are Nietzsche and Heidegger, and that reading
Nietzsche alone was bad enough, but that reading the two together was a
real shock. My real question is what list colleagues make of the
connection between H and F, and why F refers to his reading of H as
producing a "shock." What kind of shock was it? The quotation above is
employed as it mirrors similar comments Foucault makes in other places,
such as "What is Enlightenment" and one or two other places where he
criticizes the commitment to humanism.
I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on the loosely-formed question above?
If not, I'll certainly understand.
Thanks!
--John