Re: more on rorty

Nate and Nathan,

I am jumping in here...

I hope you don't mind, if you do, send me that Snow White email.

Have you guys read Badiou's new book _Ethics_? I have discussed it with
others but they are nasty pragmatists, and Badiou is definitely not their
cup of tea. His anti-pragmatic stance I don't think is sustainable in
everyday life, but I do like how he attacks 'victimhood', and it is similar
to some of my own theories (hmm which I would call self-subjectification),
and how he attacks the Other (which is almost the same thing as attacking
victimhood, almost).

I think it would have relevance when discussing Liberalism, and especially


> 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.
> I guess my bringing this up wasn't that worthwhile.
> More in a second.
> Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: "newidder" <N.E.Widder@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: more on rorty

> >Sure, but what would be post-liberal about changing all that around? I
> >how strictly are we using the word "liberal"? I suppose you're right...we
> >have to use it pretty strictly to avoid getting co-opted by people like
> >Rorty. I get disgusted by what I read in the newspaper all the time...I
> >guess I just never make the conscious association of what I see with
> >liberalism.
> Your previous post suggested that by liberalism you meant standard
> Anglo-American academic liberalism ("what people's problems are with
> politics. Because I share Rorty's politics..."), which Rorty accepts and
> to defend by anti-foundationalist arguments. What you are saying here
> more like some sort of liberal sentiment ("I get disguested by what I read
> the newspaper all the time"). Even Foucault had some of those, and didn't
> think they were all that bad, similar to the way Nietzsche accepted that
> sentiments of Christian morality (i.e., treat others well) were not so
bad, it
> was rather the ressentiment which underpinned them (See Daybreak, n. 103).
> don't know anyone who gets called a "post-liberal" who wants to see people
> denied their rights, treated unequally, etc.
> Nathan
> >
> >Thanks for correcting that unthought - kind of a significant and
> >embarrassing one, at that
> No prob. Your welcome.
> Nathan
> >
> >Nate
> Dr. Nathan Widder
> Lecturer in Political Theory
> University of Exeter
> Department of Politics
> Amory Building
> Rennes Drive
> Exeter EX4 4RJ
> United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 (0)1392 263 183
> Fax: +44 (0)1392 263 305

Partial thread listing: