On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Reg Lilly wrote (in response to my query):
> Foucault says (Dits et ecrits, IV, pp. 703 -- originally "Le retour de
> la morale" in Les Nouvelles litte'raires, #2937, 28 July, 1984, pp.
> 36-41) that "Heidegger a tousjours e'te' pour moi le philosophe
> essentiel. ... J'avais essaye' de lire Nietzsche dans les anne'es
> cinquante, mais Nietzsche tout seul ne me disait rien! Tandis que
> Nietzsche et Heidegger, ca a e'te' le choc philosophique!
>
> > 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 don't really know for sure, but I think that Heidegger was the one
> who specifically thematized as a problem and hence taught Foucault what
> it meant 'to think otherwise.' Armed with that philosophical lesson,
> one can imagine that the return to Nietzsche was *much* richer for
> Foucault. Reading Nietzsche in France in the 1950's, especially before
> Heidegger's influence on Bataille, Blanchot, Klossowski, was to read not
> so much a philosopher, but a writer, and next to Sade even
> Nietzsche-qua-writer isn't very shocking!
>
> Reg
>
The above makes a lot of sense to me. Nietzsche can be read in a sort of
traditional way, or in a way that does not produce a lot of insights -- as
you say, as a writer, not a philosopher. Because of my hopelessly analytic
bent, I wasn't thinking historically enough. As Frederic Jameson warns us,
"Always historicize!"
Sincere thanks for the comment.
--John
> Foucault says (Dits et ecrits, IV, pp. 703 -- originally "Le retour de
> la morale" in Les Nouvelles litte'raires, #2937, 28 July, 1984, pp.
> 36-41) that "Heidegger a tousjours e'te' pour moi le philosophe
> essentiel. ... J'avais essaye' de lire Nietzsche dans les anne'es
> cinquante, mais Nietzsche tout seul ne me disait rien! Tandis que
> Nietzsche et Heidegger, ca a e'te' le choc philosophique!
>
> > 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 don't really know for sure, but I think that Heidegger was the one
> who specifically thematized as a problem and hence taught Foucault what
> it meant 'to think otherwise.' Armed with that philosophical lesson,
> one can imagine that the return to Nietzsche was *much* richer for
> Foucault. Reading Nietzsche in France in the 1950's, especially before
> Heidegger's influence on Bataille, Blanchot, Klossowski, was to read not
> so much a philosopher, but a writer, and next to Sade even
> Nietzsche-qua-writer isn't very shocking!
>
> Reg
>
The above makes a lot of sense to me. Nietzsche can be read in a sort of
traditional way, or in a way that does not produce a lot of insights -- as
you say, as a writer, not a philosopher. Because of my hopelessly analytic
bent, I wasn't thinking historically enough. As Frederic Jameson warns us,
"Always historicize!"
Sincere thanks for the comment.
--John