Joe
Thanks for the reply. I went back and looked at the old mails. I thought
your project looked interesting, but I sent a (quick) question about
Heidegger to which I don't appear to have had a response. It is possible it
got lost when i was without e-mail, in which case i am sorry. I am very
happy to pursue
this. Your mail throws down the gauntlet as it were...
>As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that Althusser had an impact
>on Foucault's writings (and later, vice-versa)
I am happy to agree with this
> -- he is the principal influence -
>and Nietzsche is not.
I can't accept this. I don't want to get into a sterile debate on who
was more important than who, and questions of influence should interest us
for what they illuminate rather than as academic exercises in the history of
ideas, but i fail to see how you can argue this. I await extrapolation.
>Althusser first laid the grounds for an antihumanist
>historiography ("Marxism and Humanism") that became the basis for both
>archaeology and genealogy.
Althusser was the first? Historiography is part of the problem surely?
That's one of the key things Foucault seems to be aiming at. And
what about the second Untimely Meditation, the Genealogy of Morals, etc.
What about Division II of Being and Time? Don't forget Althusser's
antihumanism is directly linked to Heidegger's Letter on Humanism (which
was itself an intervention in French debates - sent to Beaufret, critique of
Sartre, etc.)
I look forward to your response.
Best wishes
Stuart
Thanks for the reply. I went back and looked at the old mails. I thought
your project looked interesting, but I sent a (quick) question about
Heidegger to which I don't appear to have had a response. It is possible it
got lost when i was without e-mail, in which case i am sorry. I am very
happy to pursue
this. Your mail throws down the gauntlet as it were...
>As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that Althusser had an impact
>on Foucault's writings (and later, vice-versa)
I am happy to agree with this
> -- he is the principal influence -
>and Nietzsche is not.
I can't accept this. I don't want to get into a sterile debate on who
was more important than who, and questions of influence should interest us
for what they illuminate rather than as academic exercises in the history of
ideas, but i fail to see how you can argue this. I await extrapolation.
>Althusser first laid the grounds for an antihumanist
>historiography ("Marxism and Humanism") that became the basis for both
>archaeology and genealogy.
Althusser was the first? Historiography is part of the problem surely?
That's one of the key things Foucault seems to be aiming at. And
what about the second Untimely Meditation, the Genealogy of Morals, etc.
What about Division II of Being and Time? Don't forget Althusser's
antihumanism is directly linked to Heidegger's Letter on Humanism (which
was itself an intervention in French debates - sent to Beaufret, critique of
Sartre, etc.)
I look forward to your response.
Best wishes
Stuart