Re: not Foucault and kosovo

<bold> not to be *supported*, but perhaps still to be *admired*.

</bold>and what is the difference between these two when we are about to
take a political position,unless think as any rupture a good one!!!
unless we sacrifice the future for the present moment and unless the past
does not matter at all ( in history) !!!


<bold>For that matter, was there never a moment when>the Islamic
revolutionaries *could have* established democratic

>institutions?

</bold>Not with such a leadership! and not for that moment of iranian
history. ( I should say at that moment of the history, the iranian
society took a 180 degree turn , going 200 years back. How come that at
the same time, many ORDINARY people ( not philosophers like M.F.) saw the
problem but he couldn't? what was/is wrong with his theories that
unable him to see clearly such an obviously abusive
leadership/ideology?



<bold>But certainly, one can find echoes of >Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger,
Camus and Sartre here--of a longing for a

>life with meaning, with purpose, with soul;


</bold>or echo of religious thinking. "trenscendentale" . And that,
for a philosopher who believes in the death of the subject!????

whatever would provid him with distance from "marxism"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!






At 12:07 PM 5/18/1999 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, 18 May 1999 aoliai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>

>> what was to be admired about Khomeyni?

>

>I don't know. You have the text, I don't; what else does he say? But

>perhaps a certain steadfastness against "the tide of history", a

>willingness to make a "rupture in history", as Foucault says in "Is it

>Useless to Revolt?" Not, for the most part, a good one, as it turns

>out--hence not to be *supported*, but perhaps still to be *admired*.

>

>> Beside it is not just Khomeyni, he believed that Islam will
establish

>> democratic institution in the society!

>

>Really? Does he say that? For that matter, was there never a moment
when

>the Islamic revolutionaries *could have* established democratic

>institutions? Did Puritan revolutionaries not help to establish

>democratic institutions in the UK? (And if those institutions had
failed

>to take root, would we not now scoff at the idea that they ever could

>have?)

>

>> And what is that SPIRITUALITY he supported in the revolution?

>

>Well, this, to me, is the really interesting question, though Foucault

>does not seem to have left us enough--that has been translated into

>English, anyway--to answer it. But certainly, one can find echoes of

>Nietzsche, Weber, Heidegger, Camus and Sartre here--of a longing for a

>life with meaning, with purpose, with soul; a life that is not simply

>mechanical and instrumental.

>

>> and waht do you mean by: Ah, "the French Foucault" rears his ugly

>> head ;).

>

>Some--Vincent Descombes, Richard Rorty--find that there is a
Nietzschean-

>anarchist version of Foucault who speaks to French audiences and a
liberal

>version of Foucault who speaks to anglophone audiences. I don't know
to

>what extent that is true, but it is clear from the texts that have
been

>translated that Foucault does tailor what he says to suit his

>interlocutors ("Discussion with Maoists" and the discussion at the end
of

>_Language, Counter-Memory, Practice_ being prime examples). As far as
I

>know, none of the dispatches from Iran (or any of his other
journalistic

>work) have been translated.

>

>Matthew

>

> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University,
Toronto---

> dear readers, my apologies.

> I'm drifting in and out of sleep.

>
---------------------------------(R.E.M.)----------------------------------

>

>

<bold><italic>The foucaldien ethos has already reached his/her eternal
utopia in the "present". No need for further move!

</italic></bold>



Partial thread listing: