Ana
>Probably you have seen the intervieuw in which Foucault said thay nobody
>influenced him so much as Heidegger did.
Sure, the whole thesis is in part designed to understand this comment.
>Nevertheless, we can say that
>Nietzsche and Adorno also influenced him as much (or even more) as
>Heidegger.
Well, I argue, and contrary to most received opinion that Heidegger is far
more fundamental than Nietzsche. Often when Nietzsche is the influence he is
read through a Heideggerian lens. The thesis, which is on space and history
in Foucault, identifies a number of issues, looks at Nietzsche and suggests
that N alone could not have provided F with the conceptual tools he has.
Hence Heidegger. I'm not so sure about Adorno - he's there in some of F's
work, but not as a major source. F makes some comments about Adorno & the
Frankfurt school late in life, these are interesting in this context. In any
case, despite his protestations, Adorno owes a lot to Heidegger.
>Fortunately (and probably you won´t agree with this) Foucault was
>not influenced by de barroc style in which generally Heidegger wrote.
You're right that he wasn't, but I have a good deal of respect for how H
wrote as much as for what he wrote. I don't know how F comes across in
Spanish, but he strikes me as a very elegant writer in French, but often a
bit clumsy/heavy-handed in English.
>
>Best wishes with your interesting thesis
>
Thanks, but it's finished. Viva in April.
Best wishes
Stuart
>Probably you have seen the intervieuw in which Foucault said thay nobody
>influenced him so much as Heidegger did.
Sure, the whole thesis is in part designed to understand this comment.
>Nevertheless, we can say that
>Nietzsche and Adorno also influenced him as much (or even more) as
>Heidegger.
Well, I argue, and contrary to most received opinion that Heidegger is far
more fundamental than Nietzsche. Often when Nietzsche is the influence he is
read through a Heideggerian lens. The thesis, which is on space and history
in Foucault, identifies a number of issues, looks at Nietzsche and suggests
that N alone could not have provided F with the conceptual tools he has.
Hence Heidegger. I'm not so sure about Adorno - he's there in some of F's
work, but not as a major source. F makes some comments about Adorno & the
Frankfurt school late in life, these are interesting in this context. In any
case, despite his protestations, Adorno owes a lot to Heidegger.
>Fortunately (and probably you won´t agree with this) Foucault was
>not influenced by de barroc style in which generally Heidegger wrote.
You're right that he wasn't, but I have a good deal of respect for how H
wrote as much as for what he wrote. I don't know how F comes across in
Spanish, but he strikes me as a very elegant writer in French, but often a
bit clumsy/heavy-handed in English.
>
>Best wishes with your interesting thesis
>
Thanks, but it's finished. Viva in April.
Best wishes
Stuart