Various scattered comments in response to these discussions:-
Christopher wrote:-
>Heidegger seems the more Hegelian of
>the two [comp to Derrida] at first glance since he seems committed to the
idea of >historical development and a "progress" or advancement in the field
of philosophy >from one era or generation to the next.
I'm not sure this is tenable. Development and progress are not what
Heidegger thinks of the history of being - if anything its regress. And for
the difference with Hegel see Identity and Difference, and the Piety of
Thought essays.
Loren wrote:-
>I'm not sure who has read the Spanos book Heidegger and Criticism, but it
>seems spanos' critique of Derrida "the indifference of differance" is
>similar to foucault's--that emergence is left out. However, Spanos also
>critisizes foucault for ignoring ontology.
Well I've read this too, but was rather disappointed (by the way, I'm not a
debater, and i'm not even sure i know what it means). A better critique of
Foucault on ontology is Beatrice Han, L'ontologie manquée de Michel Foucault
(translation apparently forthcoming in Stanford UP). But I think both are
misleading - to my mind (as I think i've outlined before on this list)
Foucauldian genealogy can be profitably seen as (Heideggerian) historical
ontology.
Mike wrote
>it seems to me that spanos is saying that Heidegger and foucault, the two
most
>>important thinkers, were both blinded in their insight, which is, of
course, Paul >de man's phrase. Foucault's excessive focus on
"sociopolitics" prevented him from
> seeing such things as "enframing" and "the age of the world picture,"
whereas
> Heidegger's focus on ontology prevented him from seeing things such as the
evil
> of nazism, even though he later made a reference to gas chambers in the
context
> of a criticism of the technological mindset. A synthesis of Heidegger and
> foucault enables "oppositional intellectuals" to avoid the mistakes of
both.
Foucault is - i try to argue - misread if there is solely an emphasis on his
sociopolitics, or the ontic material of history. His work can be profitably
read as historical ontology, and in his conception of the 'dispositif'
(stupidly translated in the History of Sexuality Vol I as 'deployment' which
is not what Foucault means at all) he comes very close to the Heideggerian
notion of enframing. Heidegger's Ge-stell is often translated into French as
dispositif. And as for Heidegger, his examination of these things seems to
me to be precisely an examination of what made Nazism _possible_ (see the
Nietzsche lecture book, or The Question of Technology, etc.)
By the way Mike, I like the quote from Baudrillard you end with. Can you
provide a reference?
Then, discussing Derrida's Specters, Nathan said:-
>What these critics say
>is that Derridean deconstruction disables such a commitment -- it
>amounts to Derrida's attempt to ground an ethic, which deconstruction
>itself shows cannot be done. I can't think of any names of these
>critics at the moment, other than Ernesto Laclau. His review of
>Specters can be found in Emancipation(s) (Verso, published around
>1997).
It's interesting, because Laclau is now happily talking about the importance
of ethics (for example at a conference at Essex on Ethics and Politics). I
was talking to Simon Critchley there, who said he thought Laclau had
fundamentally changed his mind, but refused to accept he had. If you're
interested in this issue, Critchley's books - particularly The Ethics of
Deconstruction and the new Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity are well worth
looking at.
Best
Stuart
Christopher wrote:-
>Heidegger seems the more Hegelian of
>the two [comp to Derrida] at first glance since he seems committed to the
idea of >historical development and a "progress" or advancement in the field
of philosophy >from one era or generation to the next.
I'm not sure this is tenable. Development and progress are not what
Heidegger thinks of the history of being - if anything its regress. And for
the difference with Hegel see Identity and Difference, and the Piety of
Thought essays.
Loren wrote:-
>I'm not sure who has read the Spanos book Heidegger and Criticism, but it
>seems spanos' critique of Derrida "the indifference of differance" is
>similar to foucault's--that emergence is left out. However, Spanos also
>critisizes foucault for ignoring ontology.
Well I've read this too, but was rather disappointed (by the way, I'm not a
debater, and i'm not even sure i know what it means). A better critique of
Foucault on ontology is Beatrice Han, L'ontologie manquée de Michel Foucault
(translation apparently forthcoming in Stanford UP). But I think both are
misleading - to my mind (as I think i've outlined before on this list)
Foucauldian genealogy can be profitably seen as (Heideggerian) historical
ontology.
Mike wrote
>it seems to me that spanos is saying that Heidegger and foucault, the two
most
>>important thinkers, were both blinded in their insight, which is, of
course, Paul >de man's phrase. Foucault's excessive focus on
"sociopolitics" prevented him from
> seeing such things as "enframing" and "the age of the world picture,"
whereas
> Heidegger's focus on ontology prevented him from seeing things such as the
evil
> of nazism, even though he later made a reference to gas chambers in the
context
> of a criticism of the technological mindset. A synthesis of Heidegger and
> foucault enables "oppositional intellectuals" to avoid the mistakes of
both.
Foucault is - i try to argue - misread if there is solely an emphasis on his
sociopolitics, or the ontic material of history. His work can be profitably
read as historical ontology, and in his conception of the 'dispositif'
(stupidly translated in the History of Sexuality Vol I as 'deployment' which
is not what Foucault means at all) he comes very close to the Heideggerian
notion of enframing. Heidegger's Ge-stell is often translated into French as
dispositif. And as for Heidegger, his examination of these things seems to
me to be precisely an examination of what made Nazism _possible_ (see the
Nietzsche lecture book, or The Question of Technology, etc.)
By the way Mike, I like the quote from Baudrillard you end with. Can you
provide a reference?
Then, discussing Derrida's Specters, Nathan said:-
>What these critics say
>is that Derridean deconstruction disables such a commitment -- it
>amounts to Derrida's attempt to ground an ethic, which deconstruction
>itself shows cannot be done. I can't think of any names of these
>critics at the moment, other than Ernesto Laclau. His review of
>Specters can be found in Emancipation(s) (Verso, published around
>1997).
It's interesting, because Laclau is now happily talking about the importance
of ethics (for example at a conference at Essex on Ethics and Politics). I
was talking to Simon Critchley there, who said he thought Laclau had
fundamentally changed his mind, but refused to accept he had. If you're
interested in this issue, Critchley's books - particularly The Ethics of
Deconstruction and the new Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity are well worth
looking at.
Best
Stuart