Is there any "truth" contained in the human sciences, the sciences of man,
which would not go away if we all stoped believeing in it? I think Foucault's
answer would be no. I think this is what he meant when he said in "Mots et
choses" that man was a contingent creation stabilized within the classical
episteme, a contingent creation that would not survive the passing of that
episteme. I think he meant that the human sciences are a discourse which
conjured its' subject into being. This subject (man) did not exist before this
discourse and will cease to exist when the episteme which stabilzed the meaning
of this discourse mutates, ruptures or just simply dies of boredom. If this is
true then I would feel comfy calling Foucault a nihilist in spite of the fact
that he understood that both "man" and the demise of "man" had real effects.
This is no more than to say that if many people believe in Jesus a lot of them
will celebrate his birthday and this will be good for retail sales. The end of
belief in Jesus, on the other hand, would do horrible things to Sears and
roebucks December numbers. This is my turnip-witted reading of Foucault. would
someone please rescue me from my confusion. By the way, I think Nietzsche was a
nihilist too but I'm not sure about Jesus. He might have been dead serious.
Confusedly,
Tony Michael Roberts
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Sebastian Gurciullo <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Data: Saturday, January 09, 1999 6:10 PM
> Oggetto: Re: Was Foucault a nihilist?
>
>
> >Foucault's nihilism? foucault himself claimed (in a couple of interviews
> >mainly) that his histories were in a sense nothing but "fictions" and that
> >what he was really interested in when writing them was of experiencing some
> >form of personal transformation! this confirms the kind of account tony
> >gives in his first post on F's nihilism, that F sought to present as
> >reasoned, scholarly, work the kind of alternative account(s) that must be
> >outmanouvered in order for the conventional normal one to hold onto its
> >claim to validity. Foucault's painstakingly reconstructed genealogies are
> >therefore not the truth at last coming out, but the more disturbing
> >unworking of every possibility of truth at last, which is a transformative
> >experience which Foucault would like to share with his readers.
>
> No, no, no, no, no. He is not interested in the "disturbing unworking of
> every possibility of truth at last." That's nihilism! Foucault was not a
> deconstrucitonist! Truth is *incredibly* important to Foucault. But not
> because it has an essence so much as it has such profound affects. And
> something that has profound affects must be taken very seriously.
>
> Was Nietzsche a nihilist? The answer is no, right? He was a diagnostician of
> nihilism. He thought it was a necessary stage of intellectual life -- the
> "lion" stage. But it could not be the *goal* of intellectual activity. It
> was not something that Nietzsche or Foucault positively hoped for. Because
> the ideal agents of nihilism are precisely the thoughtless products of the
> disciplines (Foucault) or the satiated bourgeois ridiculed in the Preface to
> Zarathustra. Nihilism is the shrug of indifference directed at every
> valuation -- and isn't that exactly what liberal toleration is? Isn't that
> exactly the ethic of so many so-called leftists?
>
> Foucault was not a nihilist. He did not want to unwork every possibility of
> truth. Neither did Nietzsche. "Truth" might be an error, but the word
> "error" does not always literally translate into "undesirable" or "harmful".
> In *Genealogy* for instance Nietzsche constantly accuses preists and
> religionists of committing errors that *promote life.*
>
> For Foucault's own view on this, see his Introduction to Canguilem's "Normal
> and Pathological." For an insightful commentary on that essay, see (!) my
> essay, "Foucault and Lebensphilosophie" in some journal or other the name of
> which I forget.
>
> --John Ransom
>
>
> >
> >the last part of tony's mail seems to move either into parody or devil's
> >advocacy. we finally realize that all we need to do is to remove every
> >attempt at a regime of truth and miraculously, spontaneously,
> >anarchistically perhaps, in an orgy of freedom, really good things start to
> >happen and things are at last radically transformed, nothing less than the
> >long delayed promise of the enlightenment spontaneously erupts amongst us.
> >wish fulfilled. this impossible scenario is sometimes what one senses would
> >be F's utopia, the end of regimes as such, no further attempts to construct
> >a new order, no more problem solving, etc. Foucault never actually says any
> >such thing, its only when you attempt to think through the implications of
> >his thinking in the real world that these possibilities become manifest in
> >his thought. But then, I don't think Foucault really was much of a
> practical
> >thinker, except perhaps in furnishing a whole new generation of scholars
> >with varyingly imaginative, provocative, contradictory theses with which to
> >carry out more scholarship in new areas of critical thought - the Foucault
> >industry.
> >
> >Overall, I doubt that even this kind of happily anarchistic utopia would
> >have been of much attraction to F. In the end he seemed to embrace the
> >utopia of aestheticism, of the beautifully lived life and above all, of a
> >memorable life, as a way of resisting the ugly deformations of an
> >administered world. When you attempt to fit this last move of Foucault's
> >late works on ethics (as aesthetics of existence or as the self's ascetic
> >stylisation of itself) within the overall output of productive ideas (an
> >attempt which some F scholars would probably see as futile or outmoded) its
> >as if Foucault wanted to set an example, much in the way of Nietzsche but
> >perhaps in the end without as much elegance and originality, of how
> >problematic existence actually is, let alone truth or knowledge of
> existence
> >and how to critically resist its deformations. How successful F. was at
> this
> >is still very much up in the air. Sure he has been hailed by some as a
> saint
> >for the sheer productivity of new tools with which to carry out analyses, a
> >proliferation of Foucauldian studies of this or that, for a myriad of
> >purposes, and endless commentaries on what he actually thought and why, all
> >of which is only natural, its scholarly debate as usual isn't it?
> >
> >There are many Foucaults to choose from, and the one I find most attractive
> >is the one who seems to be a stylish nihilist, the one who gets into
> trouble
> >with the likes of Habermas for "performative contradictions". The appeal of
> >this Foucault is that he reflects a great deal of the nihilism lurking
> about
> >in our contemporary world, that many would prefer did not exist or could
> >smooth away with good-will and careful intersubjective communication, or
> >whatever. It is doubtful that anything good would necessarily come of this
> >Foucault, or anybody's well meaning appropriation of his ideas. But then,
> >its better to will nothing than not will at all, and perhaps less harmful.
> >
> >Of course, if you dont like this Foucault, just shop around, you're sure to
> >find the one that best suits you.
> >
> > cheers
> > sebastian gurciullo
> >
which would not go away if we all stoped believeing in it? I think Foucault's
answer would be no. I think this is what he meant when he said in "Mots et
choses" that man was a contingent creation stabilized within the classical
episteme, a contingent creation that would not survive the passing of that
episteme. I think he meant that the human sciences are a discourse which
conjured its' subject into being. This subject (man) did not exist before this
discourse and will cease to exist when the episteme which stabilzed the meaning
of this discourse mutates, ruptures or just simply dies of boredom. If this is
true then I would feel comfy calling Foucault a nihilist in spite of the fact
that he understood that both "man" and the demise of "man" had real effects.
This is no more than to say that if many people believe in Jesus a lot of them
will celebrate his birthday and this will be good for retail sales. The end of
belief in Jesus, on the other hand, would do horrible things to Sears and
roebucks December numbers. This is my turnip-witted reading of Foucault. would
someone please rescue me from my confusion. By the way, I think Nietzsche was a
nihilist too but I'm not sure about Jesus. He might have been dead serious.
Confusedly,
Tony Michael Roberts
> -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: Sebastian Gurciullo <sebtempo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Data: Saturday, January 09, 1999 6:10 PM
> Oggetto: Re: Was Foucault a nihilist?
>
>
> >Foucault's nihilism? foucault himself claimed (in a couple of interviews
> >mainly) that his histories were in a sense nothing but "fictions" and that
> >what he was really interested in when writing them was of experiencing some
> >form of personal transformation! this confirms the kind of account tony
> >gives in his first post on F's nihilism, that F sought to present as
> >reasoned, scholarly, work the kind of alternative account(s) that must be
> >outmanouvered in order for the conventional normal one to hold onto its
> >claim to validity. Foucault's painstakingly reconstructed genealogies are
> >therefore not the truth at last coming out, but the more disturbing
> >unworking of every possibility of truth at last, which is a transformative
> >experience which Foucault would like to share with his readers.
>
> No, no, no, no, no. He is not interested in the "disturbing unworking of
> every possibility of truth at last." That's nihilism! Foucault was not a
> deconstrucitonist! Truth is *incredibly* important to Foucault. But not
> because it has an essence so much as it has such profound affects. And
> something that has profound affects must be taken very seriously.
>
> Was Nietzsche a nihilist? The answer is no, right? He was a diagnostician of
> nihilism. He thought it was a necessary stage of intellectual life -- the
> "lion" stage. But it could not be the *goal* of intellectual activity. It
> was not something that Nietzsche or Foucault positively hoped for. Because
> the ideal agents of nihilism are precisely the thoughtless products of the
> disciplines (Foucault) or the satiated bourgeois ridiculed in the Preface to
> Zarathustra. Nihilism is the shrug of indifference directed at every
> valuation -- and isn't that exactly what liberal toleration is? Isn't that
> exactly the ethic of so many so-called leftists?
>
> Foucault was not a nihilist. He did not want to unwork every possibility of
> truth. Neither did Nietzsche. "Truth" might be an error, but the word
> "error" does not always literally translate into "undesirable" or "harmful".
> In *Genealogy* for instance Nietzsche constantly accuses preists and
> religionists of committing errors that *promote life.*
>
> For Foucault's own view on this, see his Introduction to Canguilem's "Normal
> and Pathological." For an insightful commentary on that essay, see (!) my
> essay, "Foucault and Lebensphilosophie" in some journal or other the name of
> which I forget.
>
> --John Ransom
>
>
> >
> >the last part of tony's mail seems to move either into parody or devil's
> >advocacy. we finally realize that all we need to do is to remove every
> >attempt at a regime of truth and miraculously, spontaneously,
> >anarchistically perhaps, in an orgy of freedom, really good things start to
> >happen and things are at last radically transformed, nothing less than the
> >long delayed promise of the enlightenment spontaneously erupts amongst us.
> >wish fulfilled. this impossible scenario is sometimes what one senses would
> >be F's utopia, the end of regimes as such, no further attempts to construct
> >a new order, no more problem solving, etc. Foucault never actually says any
> >such thing, its only when you attempt to think through the implications of
> >his thinking in the real world that these possibilities become manifest in
> >his thought. But then, I don't think Foucault really was much of a
> practical
> >thinker, except perhaps in furnishing a whole new generation of scholars
> >with varyingly imaginative, provocative, contradictory theses with which to
> >carry out more scholarship in new areas of critical thought - the Foucault
> >industry.
> >
> >Overall, I doubt that even this kind of happily anarchistic utopia would
> >have been of much attraction to F. In the end he seemed to embrace the
> >utopia of aestheticism, of the beautifully lived life and above all, of a
> >memorable life, as a way of resisting the ugly deformations of an
> >administered world. When you attempt to fit this last move of Foucault's
> >late works on ethics (as aesthetics of existence or as the self's ascetic
> >stylisation of itself) within the overall output of productive ideas (an
> >attempt which some F scholars would probably see as futile or outmoded) its
> >as if Foucault wanted to set an example, much in the way of Nietzsche but
> >perhaps in the end without as much elegance and originality, of how
> >problematic existence actually is, let alone truth or knowledge of
> existence
> >and how to critically resist its deformations. How successful F. was at
> this
> >is still very much up in the air. Sure he has been hailed by some as a
> saint
> >for the sheer productivity of new tools with which to carry out analyses, a
> >proliferation of Foucauldian studies of this or that, for a myriad of
> >purposes, and endless commentaries on what he actually thought and why, all
> >of which is only natural, its scholarly debate as usual isn't it?
> >
> >There are many Foucaults to choose from, and the one I find most attractive
> >is the one who seems to be a stylish nihilist, the one who gets into
> trouble
> >with the likes of Habermas for "performative contradictions". The appeal of
> >this Foucault is that he reflects a great deal of the nihilism lurking
> about
> >in our contemporary world, that many would prefer did not exist or could
> >smooth away with good-will and careful intersubjective communication, or
> >whatever. It is doubtful that anything good would necessarily come of this
> >Foucault, or anybody's well meaning appropriation of his ideas. But then,
> >its better to will nothing than not will at all, and perhaps less harmful.
> >
> >Of course, if you dont like this Foucault, just shop around, you're sure to
> >find the one that best suits you.
> >
> > cheers
> > sebastian gurciullo
> >