<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>
</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>