Colin, the question of human rights interests me because in many ways it
corresponds to Foucault's notion that justice must continuously challenge
itself and every way I look at it I always get pushed - because of
contradictions - back to a universal notion of human rights. But thanks for
taking the time to address these issues. I found it most beneficial
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: <ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
> Anthony
>
> Of course context is not alibi. But the moral meaning of statements is a
> function of the context in which they are made and the context to which
they
> refer. This is non-trivially true of the statements by Arendt which have
been
> discussed.
>
> My ability to contribute to this debate is subject to the law of
diminishing
> returns and the finite patience of list members. Three remarks and I will
beg
> leave to retire.
>
> 1) Foucault is usually rather careful and precise in his wording,
especially
> in public interventions, and the wording can repay attention. He never, as
> far as I know, explicitly adopts the principle of human rights. He speaks
of a
> universal right of the governed to act in solidarity with others, which is
> based (if it needs a base) on the moral fact of solidarity itself.
>
> 2) Foucault is not an ideological pedant. He makes common cause, in given
> cases, with human rights campaigners. I suspect (personal opinion only)
that he
> may have found some arguments against human rights campaigners to be
facile,
> cynical and morally careless.
>
> 3) It is likely that Foucault avoids using human-rights language in his
own
> name because he does not think our rights are contingent on our nature.
But as
> we have seen, he does think some affirmations of universal rights are
> justified. Ian Hacking makes the fine remark about Foucault that he was
rich in
> values; the nihilistic Foucault is a fabrication of those with narrow
monopolistic
> claims to define the sources of value. If you think the only universal
rights
> of humans are those which are grounded in a human essence and if you
decide
> Foucault is correct in holding there is no such essence, then maybe you
feel
> uncomfortable. But then he is not responsible for your discomfort, nor is
he
> obliged to share it.
>
> Regards
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>
corresponds to Foucault's notion that justice must continuously challenge
itself and every way I look at it I always get pushed - because of
contradictions - back to a universal notion of human rights. But thanks for
taking the time to address these issues. I found it most beneficial
Anthony
----- Original Message -----
From: <ColinNGordon@xxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Human rights
> Anthony
>
> Of course context is not alibi. But the moral meaning of statements is a
> function of the context in which they are made and the context to which
they
> refer. This is non-trivially true of the statements by Arendt which have
been
> discussed.
>
> My ability to contribute to this debate is subject to the law of
diminishing
> returns and the finite patience of list members. Three remarks and I will
beg
> leave to retire.
>
> 1) Foucault is usually rather careful and precise in his wording,
especially
> in public interventions, and the wording can repay attention. He never, as
> far as I know, explicitly adopts the principle of human rights. He speaks
of a
> universal right of the governed to act in solidarity with others, which is
> based (if it needs a base) on the moral fact of solidarity itself.
>
> 2) Foucault is not an ideological pedant. He makes common cause, in given
> cases, with human rights campaigners. I suspect (personal opinion only)
that he
> may have found some arguments against human rights campaigners to be
facile,
> cynical and morally careless.
>
> 3) It is likely that Foucault avoids using human-rights language in his
own
> name because he does not think our rights are contingent on our nature.
But as
> we have seen, he does think some affirmations of universal rights are
> justified. Ian Hacking makes the fine remark about Foucault that he was
rich in
> values; the nihilistic Foucault is a fabrication of those with narrow
monopolistic
> claims to define the sources of value. If you think the only universal
rights
> of humans are those which are grounded in a human essence and if you
decide
> Foucault is correct in holding there is no such essence, then maybe you
feel
> uncomfortable. But then he is not responsible for your discomfort, nor is
he
> obliged to share it.
>
> Regards
>
> Colin
>
>
>
> --- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
> This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
>
> Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
>
> --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
> multipart/alternative
> text/plain (text body -- kept)
> text/html
> ---
>