On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Michael Roberts wrote:
> If you think that history
> ought to be a creation myth for our time commentary on the past is
> fine. If you want to understand not the present but the past,
> commentary is useless.
And if you want to do the history of the present, not creation myth but
genealogy, Nietzschean effective history, then commentary is ... ?
Whatever it is, it isn't a *violation* of the past. Foucault is not an
antiquarian--nor is he a hermeneuticist.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Yes - Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside.
That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside."
-----------------------------(Kurt Vonnegut)-------------------------------
> If you think that history
> ought to be a creation myth for our time commentary on the past is
> fine. If you want to understand not the present but the past,
> commentary is useless.
And if you want to do the history of the present, not creation myth but
genealogy, Nietzschean effective history, then commentary is ... ?
Whatever it is, it isn't a *violation* of the past. Foucault is not an
antiquarian--nor is he a hermeneuticist.
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Yes - Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside.
That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside."
-----------------------------(Kurt Vonnegut)-------------------------------