Joe,
I am sorry I don't have the time (now) to properly engage with this post. I
will.
For now, some quick comments.
F. adopts much much more from Heidegegr that the 'several Heideggerian
claims about the elimination of the subject'.
I seriously think that the Seinsgeschichte not Seinshistorie (i.e. history
not historiography of being) of Heidegger is central to what Foucault is
doing. It is is anti-humanist (or critical of humanism) and critical. I see
it as a historicisation of the early H and Kant's Critique project. It is
explicitly, as in Heidegger, searches for the traces of humanism in the
historical question.
Folie et deraison, which should certainly be prefered to that edit Madness
and Civilisation dates from the mid 50s. How important was Althusser then? I
am asking this as a genuine question (I don't know Althusser's biography
well, so I am looking for illumination). As far as i know Althusser wasn't
publishing till 1960. Could F have picked up these things from Althusser?
To my mind F&D holds the key to Foucault's career. The approach he takes is
an extrapolation and development
>Why not Nietzschean, or Heideggerian? Maybe this is wishful thinking, but
>aren't these two at best non-political, and at worst Fascist? Do they
offer any
>kind of political criticism that has revolutionary potential?
Well I think that Nietzsche is an incredibly important thinker of the
political, and this does suppose a particular politics. Nietzsche's
criticism is absolutely shattering to received notions. And I think
Heidegger's thinking has potential for politics that extends far beyond his
own disastrous and reprehensible involvement. The later work on the polis,
on technology, etc. make me think Heidegger has much to say, much of which
transcends fascist affiliations.
Thoughts? I will try to think through some of your other issues.
I guess my bottom line is that we need to be attentive to all sorts of other
ideas in play in Foucault's work - I am sure I have been guilty of
underestimating the role of some in his work, but I am convinced that the
thought of N and H is more than just strategies or curlicues in a structural
Marxist approach.
Regards
Stuart
I am sorry I don't have the time (now) to properly engage with this post. I
will.
For now, some quick comments.
F. adopts much much more from Heidegegr that the 'several Heideggerian
claims about the elimination of the subject'.
I seriously think that the Seinsgeschichte not Seinshistorie (i.e. history
not historiography of being) of Heidegger is central to what Foucault is
doing. It is is anti-humanist (or critical of humanism) and critical. I see
it as a historicisation of the early H and Kant's Critique project. It is
explicitly, as in Heidegger, searches for the traces of humanism in the
historical question.
Folie et deraison, which should certainly be prefered to that edit Madness
and Civilisation dates from the mid 50s. How important was Althusser then? I
am asking this as a genuine question (I don't know Althusser's biography
well, so I am looking for illumination). As far as i know Althusser wasn't
publishing till 1960. Could F have picked up these things from Althusser?
To my mind F&D holds the key to Foucault's career. The approach he takes is
an extrapolation and development
>Why not Nietzschean, or Heideggerian? Maybe this is wishful thinking, but
>aren't these two at best non-political, and at worst Fascist? Do they
offer any
>kind of political criticism that has revolutionary potential?
Well I think that Nietzsche is an incredibly important thinker of the
political, and this does suppose a particular politics. Nietzsche's
criticism is absolutely shattering to received notions. And I think
Heidegger's thinking has potential for politics that extends far beyond his
own disastrous and reprehensible involvement. The later work on the polis,
on technology, etc. make me think Heidegger has much to say, much of which
transcends fascist affiliations.
Thoughts? I will try to think through some of your other issues.
I guess my bottom line is that we need to be attentive to all sorts of other
ideas in play in Foucault's work - I am sure I have been guilty of
underestimating the role of some in his work, but I am convinced that the
thought of N and H is more than just strategies or curlicues in a structural
Marxist approach.
Regards
Stuart