Didn't Foucault and Habermas have some sort of disagreement--only one among
many--concerning their youthful flings with Heidegger? Is it true that
Habermas said that he "moved beyond" Heidegger (or something like that),
while Foucault never did? Sorry to add more questions...
MRJ
At 02:19 AM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>
many--concerning their youthful flings with Heidegger? Is it true that
Habermas said that he "moved beyond" Heidegger (or something like that),
while Foucault never did? Sorry to add more questions...
MRJ
At 02:19 AM 8/14/97 -0400, you wrote:
>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
>
>