Asher
> The separation between political and spatial-ontology is completely
> arbitrary - the reason that its' political is because you can make a
> spatial-ontological division.
Sure, I even admitted to that in my original post. I suppose you're
right--Rorty does seem to have some relevance here. However, in _On
Revolution_, Arendt draws a relevant distinction between the realm of
activities that accompanies bodily needs and intimate relations, and
public-sphere speech acts. She even goes so far as to suggest that the
repression (or at least the resolution) private-sphere concerns is the
necessary precondition for action in the public sphere. Arendt associates
public-sphere activities with individuating identity-formation, which
reaches to the very heart of the question: what does Foucault's sex life
have to do with his work? Rorty does the very opposite: he associates the
private with self-creation and individuation while he, as you suggest,
simply subjects the public to an expectation of uniform liberalism. Anyway,
I guess my bringing this up wasn't that worthwhile.
More in a second.
Nate
> The separation between political and spatial-ontology is completely
> arbitrary - the reason that its' political is because you can make a
> spatial-ontological division.
Sure, I even admitted to that in my original post. I suppose you're
right--Rorty does seem to have some relevance here. However, in _On
Revolution_, Arendt draws a relevant distinction between the realm of
activities that accompanies bodily needs and intimate relations, and
public-sphere speech acts. She even goes so far as to suggest that the
repression (or at least the resolution) private-sphere concerns is the
necessary precondition for action in the public sphere. Arendt associates
public-sphere activities with individuating identity-formation, which
reaches to the very heart of the question: what does Foucault's sex life
have to do with his work? Rorty does the very opposite: he associates the
private with self-creation and individuation while he, as you suggest,
simply subjects the public to an expectation of uniform liberalism. Anyway,
I guess my bringing this up wasn't that worthwhile.
More in a second.
Nate