On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 joe.cronin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I raised some issues about Althusser a while back, and I would also
> like to continue a discussion on Foucault's uses of Althusser and
> Structural Marxism. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that
> Althusser had an impact on Foucault's writings (and later, vice-versa)
> -- he is the principal influence - and Nietzsche is not. Althusser
> first laid the grounds for an antihumanist historiography ("Marxism
> and Humanism") that became the basis for both archeology and
> geneology.
So how come we have "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" but no "Althusser,
Genealogy, History"? How come we have Foucault *talking* all the time
about how important Nietzsche was to his thinking (and saying that
Heidegger was "the essential philosopher" for him), but saying nothing
much if anything at all about Althusser? From what Foucault says and
writes, one might think that Hegel and the French Hegelians were more
important to his work (if only as something to oppose) than Althusser.
*If* Althusser was so important (and maybe you're right that he was; I
don't know Althusser, so I have no way of knowing), Foucault seems to have
gone to pains to cover up the fact. So--why?
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------
> I raised some issues about Althusser a while back, and I would also
> like to continue a discussion on Foucault's uses of Althusser and
> Structural Marxism. As far as I'm concerned, there's no question that
> Althusser had an impact on Foucault's writings (and later, vice-versa)
> -- he is the principal influence - and Nietzsche is not. Althusser
> first laid the grounds for an antihumanist historiography ("Marxism
> and Humanism") that became the basis for both archeology and
> geneology.
So how come we have "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History" but no "Althusser,
Genealogy, History"? How come we have Foucault *talking* all the time
about how important Nietzsche was to his thinking (and saying that
Heidegger was "the essential philosopher" for him), but saying nothing
much if anything at all about Althusser? From what Foucault says and
writes, one might think that Hegel and the French Hegelians were more
important to his work (if only as something to oppose) than Althusser.
*If* Althusser was so important (and maybe you're right that he was; I
don't know Althusser, so I have no way of knowing), Foucault seems to have
gone to pains to cover up the fact. So--why?
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------