on 5/22/00 8:43 PM, Vunch@xxxxxxx at Vunch@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/00 5:14:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << The only critical spirit in Modernity is the skeptical movement, the ones
> who take science
> for a religion. Come on, you should know better.
>>>
> You seem entirely unfamiliar with Habermas's defense of modernity. PM has
> ben roundly critiqued from his perspective. Habermas eschews skepticism and
> points up the way towards a fulfillment of the promises of modernity, an
> horizon which PM is unable to counter!
>
> Fred W.
We've seen the promise of modernity -- Mengela and Oppenheimer. Looks like
fun.
Perhaps Habermas was wrong and has an incomplete reading of Foucault? It's a
thought.
Perhaps, even, Habermas' reading of communicative ideals is more compatible
with Foucault than he thinks.
on 5/22/00 8:40 PM, Vunch@xxxxxxx at Vunch@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/00 5:14:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << Did I miss something? I never read Foucualt condemning heterosexuality, if
> anything at
> all. He just tried to uncover hidden historical meanigns, isn't this what
> geneology is all
> about? >>
>
> Taylor's criticism is based on interview and close reading. Foucault made
> these kinds of statements near the end of his life!
>
> Fred W.
>
Got some quotes/cites? This seems particularly absurd, particularly if
you've ever read any of the History of Sexuality series or any interview
with Foucault, ever.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004
> In a message dated 5/22/00 5:14:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << The only critical spirit in Modernity is the skeptical movement, the ones
> who take science
> for a religion. Come on, you should know better.
>>>
> You seem entirely unfamiliar with Habermas's defense of modernity. PM has
> ben roundly critiqued from his perspective. Habermas eschews skepticism and
> points up the way towards a fulfillment of the promises of modernity, an
> horizon which PM is unable to counter!
>
> Fred W.
We've seen the promise of modernity -- Mengela and Oppenheimer. Looks like
fun.
Perhaps Habermas was wrong and has an incomplete reading of Foucault? It's a
thought.
Perhaps, even, Habermas' reading of communicative ideals is more compatible
with Foucault than he thinks.
on 5/22/00 8:40 PM, Vunch@xxxxxxx at Vunch@xxxxxxx wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/00 5:14:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> jehms@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> << Did I miss something? I never read Foucualt condemning heterosexuality, if
> anything at
> all. He just tried to uncover hidden historical meanigns, isn't this what
> geneology is all
> about? >>
>
> Taylor's criticism is based on interview and close reading. Foucault made
> these kinds of statements near the end of his life!
>
> Fred W.
>
Got some quotes/cites? This seems particularly absurd, particularly if
you've ever read any of the History of Sexuality series or any interview
with Foucault, ever.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Greenhill Debate Dartmouth 2004