What distinguishes Foucault from Marx, Freud and Marcuse -- probably not
Weber -- is the absence of anything that too readily smells of
eschatology. I can ask what soul discourse does to bodies without
assuming anything about the end of history. I am not sure why the idea
of souls as a special, constructive sort of restraint on bodies is
implicit in the folks you mention anyway. I suppose "we knew it all
along" is a possibility, but forgive my denseness in missing it. Yoshie
Furuhashi wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> >What is truly interesting to me is Foucault's inversion of the
> >neo-Platonic thesis when he affirms the the "soul is the prison of
> the
> >body." To affirm the reality of souls is hardly to valorize them.
>
> Reading Marx, Freud, Weber, and Marcuse (you can substitute other
> names if
> you like) would basically get you to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?
> Or
> am I reading them in a post-Foucauldian manner? Anyway, what's new in
> that
> statement by Foucault? Close-up on the Body?
>
> Yoshie
Weber -- is the absence of anything that too readily smells of
eschatology. I can ask what soul discourse does to bodies without
assuming anything about the end of history. I am not sure why the idea
of souls as a special, constructive sort of restraint on bodies is
implicit in the folks you mention anyway. I suppose "we knew it all
along" is a possibility, but forgive my denseness in missing it. Yoshie
Furuhashi wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> >What is truly interesting to me is Foucault's inversion of the
> >neo-Platonic thesis when he affirms the the "soul is the prison of
> the
> >body." To affirm the reality of souls is hardly to valorize them.
>
> Reading Marx, Freud, Weber, and Marcuse (you can substitute other
> names if
> you like) would basically get you to the same conclusion, wouldn't it?
> Or
> am I reading them in a post-Foucauldian manner? Anyway, what's new in
> that
> statement by Foucault? Close-up on the Body?
>
> Yoshie