>Hello:
>it's my first post to this list.
>First of all:
>I think almost all of you have been blinded by your pedophilic desires
>:/) and fell in the net of that sixteen year creature (the very son of
>devil) :-). He (you Brian)
You spelled my name wrong, therefore your arguements do not apply ;)
And my father is Daddy, not Satan.
>is in the power's side since his arguments
>are based on the tradition of philosophy (which was normative until a
>litle before Foucault).
Power has no "side". Power is everywhere, it will always be everywhere
and it is not inherently evil or oppressive; it just is. I think you
are saying that I am on the side of existing power structures, but this
deffinatitely isn't true. I agree with much of what F said, not all.
I'm also an anarchist, deffinitely not for the establishment. (This is
not an argument for anarchism it is meant to show that I am not for
the establishment, nothing more.)
>I can't believe that i read some of you arguing
>in an aristotelic logic way. Logic, from Aristote to positivism is a way
>of legitimation power is based upon and its pretension of beyond-time
>validity the way to solidify and universalize temporary and epocal
>values and norms.
I disagree. Many philosophers have used syllogistic and positivist
logic contrary to popular norms. Rand comes to mind.
Any system of logic can be manipulated to justify norms. The fact that
many are arguing against norms with positivist logic is proof of that.
>A law is beyond human discussion if it follows the
>norms of logic (even Popper claimed something like that against Adorno
>and social sciences). Those were even called 'natural laws'.
It is not beyond human discussion if we do not know what the laws are.
The point, the way I see it, of debate, is to come as close as possible
to these truths.
>Second: because of that the previous discussion was in very kantian's
>period terms.
Sorry, I don't understand this, maybe you could rephrase it.
>Besides, it seems to me that you want to unify Foucault as a kind of
>whole without holes. That's not Foucault at all. Foucault is *SOMETHING*
>that changes after each new reading because his is not a closed
>philosophical system. Indeed a list devoted exclusively to him is
>perhaps against him. The way of taking F's thought seriously has,
>perhaps to do with thinking F's discourse in the net of discourses wich
>trespasses it.
Why does it change?
>Another thing: if sexuality is to be positioned as a place of resistence
>we have to be able to deal with discourses that refer to it.Foucault is
>something else than a contemporary Marquis de Sade. He told somewhere
>that Sade was interesting for neither his philosophical claims which
>were very weak nor for his sexual practice but for making that practice
>become literature.
I'm not understanding the petinence of this argument, please elaborate.
>And of course if someone is about to shoot me i'd better shoot him
>before. And a nazi is that one, except you are a nazi too, and even so
>he'll shoot you.
Please clarify, I don't understand what this is saying. The English
didn't come out quite right :)
>Apologies for my English.
No problem, but if you could restate a couple of the arguments, that
would be great.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>it's my first post to this list.
>First of all:
>I think almost all of you have been blinded by your pedophilic desires
>:/) and fell in the net of that sixteen year creature (the very son of
>devil) :-). He (you Brian)
You spelled my name wrong, therefore your arguements do not apply ;)
And my father is Daddy, not Satan.
>is in the power's side since his arguments
>are based on the tradition of philosophy (which was normative until a
>litle before Foucault).
Power has no "side". Power is everywhere, it will always be everywhere
and it is not inherently evil or oppressive; it just is. I think you
are saying that I am on the side of existing power structures, but this
deffinatitely isn't true. I agree with much of what F said, not all.
I'm also an anarchist, deffinitely not for the establishment. (This is
not an argument for anarchism it is meant to show that I am not for
the establishment, nothing more.)
>I can't believe that i read some of you arguing
>in an aristotelic logic way. Logic, from Aristote to positivism is a way
>of legitimation power is based upon and its pretension of beyond-time
>validity the way to solidify and universalize temporary and epocal
>values and norms.
I disagree. Many philosophers have used syllogistic and positivist
logic contrary to popular norms. Rand comes to mind.
Any system of logic can be manipulated to justify norms. The fact that
many are arguing against norms with positivist logic is proof of that.
>A law is beyond human discussion if it follows the
>norms of logic (even Popper claimed something like that against Adorno
>and social sciences). Those were even called 'natural laws'.
It is not beyond human discussion if we do not know what the laws are.
The point, the way I see it, of debate, is to come as close as possible
to these truths.
>Second: because of that the previous discussion was in very kantian's
>period terms.
Sorry, I don't understand this, maybe you could rephrase it.
>Besides, it seems to me that you want to unify Foucault as a kind of
>whole without holes. That's not Foucault at all. Foucault is *SOMETHING*
>that changes after each new reading because his is not a closed
>philosophical system. Indeed a list devoted exclusively to him is
>perhaps against him. The way of taking F's thought seriously has,
>perhaps to do with thinking F's discourse in the net of discourses wich
>trespasses it.
Why does it change?
>Another thing: if sexuality is to be positioned as a place of resistence
>we have to be able to deal with discourses that refer to it.Foucault is
>something else than a contemporary Marquis de Sade. He told somewhere
>that Sade was interesting for neither his philosophical claims which
>were very weak nor for his sexual practice but for making that practice
>become literature.
I'm not understanding the petinence of this argument, please elaborate.
>And of course if someone is about to shoot me i'd better shoot him
>before. And a nazi is that one, except you are a nazi too, and even so
>he'll shoot you.
Please clarify, I don't understand what this is saying. The English
didn't come out quite right :)
>Apologies for my English.
No problem, but if you could restate a couple of the arguments, that
would be great.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com