Before the publication of the extra lectures and shorter notes on
Foucault's readings of Greco-Roman philosophy, the only works we had
pertaining to that research and philosophical insight were the final two
volumes to the History of Sexuality, namely The Use of Pleasure and The Care
of the Self. Both of these, particularly the latter, were severely
criticized by several classicists throughout the 80's and 90's for
misleadingly reducing complex practices to a "Bataille-esque" sexual
dandyism that was supposed to be found in Greece and Rome. Volume 3 was
actually criticized by its inspiration, Pierre Hadot, for intepreting Seneca
as a proponent of a materialistic "aesthetics of existence", though he did
express respect and understanding that it was necessary for Foucault's
project at hand, as pointed out by Arnold Davidson.
However, with the publication of the lectures and shorter pieces backing
up the research behind this book, is there any way to challenge or revise
Hadot's contention? Could we not now say that Foucault had a broader
interpretation of Seneca and practices of self than originally thought, and
that his interpretation of Seneca in this light was thus strategic and not
problematic or misleading? In short, a specific application (in this case to
ancient sexuality) of a broader conception?
How can we now look at "The Care of the Self", in light of "The
Hermeneutics of the Subject" and other related pieces to be found in Dits et
Ecrits?
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
Foucault's readings of Greco-Roman philosophy, the only works we had
pertaining to that research and philosophical insight were the final two
volumes to the History of Sexuality, namely The Use of Pleasure and The Care
of the Self. Both of these, particularly the latter, were severely
criticized by several classicists throughout the 80's and 90's for
misleadingly reducing complex practices to a "Bataille-esque" sexual
dandyism that was supposed to be found in Greece and Rome. Volume 3 was
actually criticized by its inspiration, Pierre Hadot, for intepreting Seneca
as a proponent of a materialistic "aesthetics of existence", though he did
express respect and understanding that it was necessary for Foucault's
project at hand, as pointed out by Arnold Davidson.
However, with the publication of the lectures and shorter pieces backing
up the research behind this book, is there any way to challenge or revise
Hadot's contention? Could we not now say that Foucault had a broader
interpretation of Seneca and practices of self than originally thought, and
that his interpretation of Seneca in this light was thus strategic and not
problematic or misleading? In short, a specific application (in this case to
ancient sexuality) of a broader conception?
How can we now look at "The Care of the Self", in light of "The
Hermeneutics of the Subject" and other related pieces to be found in Dits et
Ecrits?
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"