MrFanning wrote:
"Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality
as the
case in point as it has proven to be inflammatory."
Why "homosexuality" would be a forbidden topic is beyond me. Those of us
who are gay or queer or those of us who are interested in gay studies or
queer theory come to Foucault, in part, because his work has
theoretical, ethical and political bearing on our concerns.
Bryan is a bit tedious at times. How many times will we hear the
disguised tautology: "You can't offer transcendental justifications if
you do not offer transcendental justifications." It is about time we
learn more about why we have to have or offer them. It is also tiresome
to hear someone repeatedly claim that we ought to offer "reasons" and
then weigh in with: "I am against homosexuality because it is immoral."
By what standard? Let's hear some reasoning.
That said, he seems genuinely interested in intellectual exchange and
his comments have invited both thoughtful and insipid responses -- par
for the course on a list. There is no good reason to suppress his
comments or to inhibit the thread.
Whatever the merits of his comments, treating the subject of queers as
"inflammatory" <note the insidious connection of "inflammatory" to those
flaming faggots. Think of the word faggot and its connection to
burning..> Treating us an embarrassing topic is a sure path to the
closet. That is an exercise of power that invites resistance.
"Please do talk about Kant. Please don't continue to use homosexuality
as the
case in point as it has proven to be inflammatory."
Why "homosexuality" would be a forbidden topic is beyond me. Those of us
who are gay or queer or those of us who are interested in gay studies or
queer theory come to Foucault, in part, because his work has
theoretical, ethical and political bearing on our concerns.
Bryan is a bit tedious at times. How many times will we hear the
disguised tautology: "You can't offer transcendental justifications if
you do not offer transcendental justifications." It is about time we
learn more about why we have to have or offer them. It is also tiresome
to hear someone repeatedly claim that we ought to offer "reasons" and
then weigh in with: "I am against homosexuality because it is immoral."
By what standard? Let's hear some reasoning.
That said, he seems genuinely interested in intellectual exchange and
his comments have invited both thoughtful and insipid responses -- par
for the course on a list. There is no good reason to suppress his
comments or to inhibit the thread.
Whatever the merits of his comments, treating the subject of queers as
"inflammatory" <note the insidious connection of "inflammatory" to those
flaming faggots. Think of the word faggot and its connection to
burning..> Treating us an embarrassing topic is a sure path to the
closet. That is an exercise of power that invites resistance.