Joe
>Read "Remarx on Marx," and several other interviews from the late 70's in
which Foucault claims that it was Althusser who first made the analysis of
'the
>subject' important for him. Also, read the essays in For MArx, especially
>"Marxism and Humanism," where Althusser announces Marx's "break" with the
>humanist-Hegelian model.
I have read all of this, but will endeavour to again. I'm not interested in
assembling quotes that support my position, rather building an argument
(which i sense you are too). There is of course that quote in 1984 that
Foucault said 'Heidegger is the essential philosopher'. On its own that
means shit. What is interesting, i think, is to see _how_ this could be the
case.
>Or, simply remember that Nietzsche, if he has a
>political position, is an avid individualist;
It's far far more than that. I have given a course on Nietzsche and his
Interpreters in a Politics dept, and think that there is much to say on
this.
>and Heidegger, if he is anything,
>is a closet fascist.
Not very closet really. He held public office for 10 months. But you cannot
reduce his thought to fascism. For one, it entirely neglects the
Auseinandersetzung (roughly - setting apart from another through
confrontation) of the war years and beyond. That would be like saying
Althusser was simply an apologist for Stalinism.
>Do anything from Foucault's works from teh late 60s and
>early 70s attempt to bring about a higher type of man? or do they voice
>concerns about the manne in which our society, mainly through discursive
>practices (and institutions) produces types of individuals?
Nietzsche's work is not just about the Uebermensch. There is the 'no saying'
thought too. Actually, outside of Zarathustra there is little in Nietzsche
that is about the higher type of men. The Genealogy, Beyond Good and Evil,
Antichrist, Twilight etc. these seem to me to be far more what Foucault is
doing.
Best wishes
Stuart
>Read "Remarx on Marx," and several other interviews from the late 70's in
which Foucault claims that it was Althusser who first made the analysis of
'the
>subject' important for him. Also, read the essays in For MArx, especially
>"Marxism and Humanism," where Althusser announces Marx's "break" with the
>humanist-Hegelian model.
I have read all of this, but will endeavour to again. I'm not interested in
assembling quotes that support my position, rather building an argument
(which i sense you are too). There is of course that quote in 1984 that
Foucault said 'Heidegger is the essential philosopher'. On its own that
means shit. What is interesting, i think, is to see _how_ this could be the
case.
>Or, simply remember that Nietzsche, if he has a
>political position, is an avid individualist;
It's far far more than that. I have given a course on Nietzsche and his
Interpreters in a Politics dept, and think that there is much to say on
this.
>and Heidegger, if he is anything,
>is a closet fascist.
Not very closet really. He held public office for 10 months. But you cannot
reduce his thought to fascism. For one, it entirely neglects the
Auseinandersetzung (roughly - setting apart from another through
confrontation) of the war years and beyond. That would be like saying
Althusser was simply an apologist for Stalinism.
>Do anything from Foucault's works from teh late 60s and
>early 70s attempt to bring about a higher type of man? or do they voice
>concerns about the manne in which our society, mainly through discursive
>practices (and institutions) produces types of individuals?
Nietzsche's work is not just about the Uebermensch. There is the 'no saying'
thought too. Actually, outside of Zarathustra there is little in Nietzsche
that is about the higher type of men. The Genealogy, Beyond Good and Evil,
Antichrist, Twilight etc. these seem to me to be far more what Foucault is
doing.
Best wishes
Stuart