Its not a silly question but personally I was hoping to keep myself out
of the entrails of Nietzsche interpretation, still as you've repeated
your request:
there is no way of knowing beforehand what the overman would do because
she/he/it *creates* values, does not recycle opinion as value.
"is it vengeance itself that's abhorent, or the fact that those who are
seeking trial are wrapping vengeance in the flag of justice, without
acknowledgement?"
yes to the latter- but this is what always happens - if you accept N's
point about the present dominance of values of ressentiment.
In Body/Power there's an interesting (for loads of reasons) discussion
between Foucault and some Maoists about "peoples' justice" and "peoples'
courts" where Foucault comes out strongly against the notion because of
the reinvestment in "impartiality" that courts imply and because of his
whole critique of the notion of juridical-power. Pinochet's arrest is an
event - and events are always complex, deceptive things (like the death
of God). Such a fuss about the death of something that never existed or
the triumph of something (liberal internationalist justice) that does
not matter so very much.
On a linking thought, coming out of the Foucault/Maoist discussion -
might the arguments about Foucault vis a vis Marx be coming from those
who conflate Marxism with *dialectical* materialism. Off the top of my
head there would be two major differences between Foucault in the
seventies and "vulgar Marxism"
1/ history does not proceed by contradiction but by strategy
2/ power and knowledge (and desire) are part of the infrastructure
(which is really a challenge to the notion of infrastructure)
don't think either of these two points disqualify him from being a
Marxist, just from various strands.
Jon.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
of the entrails of Nietzsche interpretation, still as you've repeated
your request:
there is no way of knowing beforehand what the overman would do because
she/he/it *creates* values, does not recycle opinion as value.
"is it vengeance itself that's abhorent, or the fact that those who are
seeking trial are wrapping vengeance in the flag of justice, without
acknowledgement?"
yes to the latter- but this is what always happens - if you accept N's
point about the present dominance of values of ressentiment.
In Body/Power there's an interesting (for loads of reasons) discussion
between Foucault and some Maoists about "peoples' justice" and "peoples'
courts" where Foucault comes out strongly against the notion because of
the reinvestment in "impartiality" that courts imply and because of his
whole critique of the notion of juridical-power. Pinochet's arrest is an
event - and events are always complex, deceptive things (like the death
of God). Such a fuss about the death of something that never existed or
the triumph of something (liberal internationalist justice) that does
not matter so very much.
On a linking thought, coming out of the Foucault/Maoist discussion -
might the arguments about Foucault vis a vis Marx be coming from those
who conflate Marxism with *dialectical* materialism. Off the top of my
head there would be two major differences between Foucault in the
seventies and "vulgar Marxism"
1/ history does not proceed by contradiction but by strategy
2/ power and knowledge (and desire) are part of the infrastructure
(which is really a challenge to the notion of infrastructure)
don't think either of these two points disqualify him from being a
Marxist, just from various strands.
Jon.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com