The passage may reflect what happens when you read too much Nietzsche ;)
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:40 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with Kevin. The passage is perhaps a
> little bit overdone in its polemic against the
> humanists, but it is certainly for real.
> It was an interview in Italian or at least published in Italian
> 'Che cos'è Lei Professor Foucault?' an interview
> by Caruso, P., first date of publication 28
> September 1967 in: La Fiera Letteraria, XLII, no.39, pp.11-15;
> = no.61 in Dits et Ecrits under the
> title: 'Conversazione con Michel Foucault'
> A more extensive version was edited in: Caruso,
> P., Conversazioni con Levi Strauss, Foucault,
> Lacan (Milano: Mursia, 1969), pp. 91-131.
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
> At 20:06 9-3-2010, you wrote:
> >Is this article for real? What is your take on it?
> >On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Kevin Turner wrote:
> >
> > > life, once again, has a purpose, and man can take up his rightful
> > > place at the center of all things...
> > >
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/mar/05/meaning-life-evolution-universe
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx
> > >> Sent: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:30:00 -0800
> > >> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature"
> > >>
> > >> There's a passage from an interview that Foucault gave (in 1967, I
> > >> think), which may help to shed some light on his understanding of
> > >> "human
> > >> nature."
> > >>
> > >> The passage comes from 'Who are you, Professor Foucault?' in
> > >> Carrette,
> > >> J. R. (ed.) Religion and Culture, Manchester, 1999: 87-104, and it
> > >> reads:
> > >>
> > >> We have to resign ourselves to taking, faced with mankind, a position
> > >> similar to the one taken towards the end of the eighteenth century
> > >> with
> > >> regard to other living species, when it was realised that they did
> > >> not
> > >> function for someone neither for themselves, nor for man, nor for
> > >> God
> > >> but that they quite simply functioned. Organisms function. Why do
> > >> they
> > >> function? In order to reproduce? Not at all. To keep alive? No more
> > >> for
> > >> this reason. They function. They function in a very ambiguous way, in
> > >> order to live but also in order to die, since it is well known that
> > >> the
> > >> functioning which makes life possible is a functioning which
> > >> constantly
> > >> wears matter out, in such a way that it is precisely that which makes
> > >> possible life which at the same time produces death. Species do not
> > >> function for themselves, nor for man, nor for the greater glory of
> > >> God;
> > >> they confine themselves to functioning. The same thing may be said
> > >> of the
> > >> human species. Mankind is a species endowed with a nervous system
> > >> such
> > >> that to a certain point it can control its functioning. And it is
> > >> plain
> > >> that this possibility of control continuously raises the idea that
> > >> mankind must have a purpose. We discover that purpose insofar as we
> > >> have
> > >> the possibility of controlling our own functioning. But this is to
> > >> turn
> > >> things around. We tell ourselves: as we have a purpose, we must
> > >> control
> > >> our functioning; whereas in reality it is only on the basis of this
> > >> possibility of control that ideologies, philosophies, systems of
> > >> metaphysics, religions can appear, which provide a certain image
> > >> able to
> > >> focus this possibility of controlling functioning...It is the
> > >> possibility
> > >> of control which gives rise to the idea of purpose. But mankind has
> > >> in
> > >> reality no purpose, it functions, it controls its own functioning,
> > >> and it
> > >> continually creates justifications for this control. We have to
> > >> resign
> > >> ourselves to admitting that these are only justifications. Humanism
> > >> is
> > >> one of them, the last one’ (RAC: 102).
> > >>
> > >> I see no evidence that Foucault ever radically revised this position.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Kevin.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Machiel Karskens
> social and political philosophy
> Faculty of Philosophy
> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 4:40 AM, M. Karskens <mkarskens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I agree with Kevin. The passage is perhaps a
> little bit overdone in its polemic against the
> humanists, but it is certainly for real.
> It was an interview in Italian or at least published in Italian
> 'Che cos'è Lei Professor Foucault?' an interview
> by Caruso, P., first date of publication 28
> September 1967 in: La Fiera Letteraria, XLII, no.39, pp.11-15;
> = no.61 in Dits et Ecrits under the
> title: 'Conversazione con Michel Foucault'
> A more extensive version was edited in: Caruso,
> P., Conversazioni con Levi Strauss, Foucault,
> Lacan (Milano: Mursia, 1969), pp. 91-131.
>
> yours
> machiel karskens
>
>
> At 20:06 9-3-2010, you wrote:
> >Is this article for real? What is your take on it?
> >On Mar 9, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Kevin Turner wrote:
> >
> > > life, once again, has a purpose, and man can take up his rightful
> > > place at the center of all things...
> > >
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/mar/05/meaning-life-evolution-universe
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx
> > >> Sent: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 23:30:00 -0800
> > >> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature"
> > >>
> > >> There's a passage from an interview that Foucault gave (in 1967, I
> > >> think), which may help to shed some light on his understanding of
> > >> "human
> > >> nature."
> > >>
> > >> The passage comes from 'Who are you, Professor Foucault?' in
> > >> Carrette,
> > >> J. R. (ed.) Religion and Culture, Manchester, 1999: 87-104, and it
> > >> reads:
> > >>
> > >> We have to resign ourselves to taking, faced with mankind, a position
> > >> similar to the one taken towards the end of the eighteenth century
> > >> with
> > >> regard to other living species, when it was realised that they did
> > >> not
> > >> function for someone neither for themselves, nor for man, nor for
> > >> God
> > >> but that they quite simply functioned. Organisms function. Why do
> > >> they
> > >> function? In order to reproduce? Not at all. To keep alive? No more
> > >> for
> > >> this reason. They function. They function in a very ambiguous way, in
> > >> order to live but also in order to die, since it is well known that
> > >> the
> > >> functioning which makes life possible is a functioning which
> > >> constantly
> > >> wears matter out, in such a way that it is precisely that which makes
> > >> possible life which at the same time produces death. Species do not
> > >> function for themselves, nor for man, nor for the greater glory of
> > >> God;
> > >> they confine themselves to functioning. The same thing may be said
> > >> of the
> > >> human species. Mankind is a species endowed with a nervous system
> > >> such
> > >> that to a certain point it can control its functioning. And it is
> > >> plain
> > >> that this possibility of control continuously raises the idea that
> > >> mankind must have a purpose. We discover that purpose insofar as we
> > >> have
> > >> the possibility of controlling our own functioning. But this is to
> > >> turn
> > >> things around. We tell ourselves: as we have a purpose, we must
> > >> control
> > >> our functioning; whereas in reality it is only on the basis of this
> > >> possibility of control that ideologies, philosophies, systems of
> > >> metaphysics, religions can appear, which provide a certain image
> > >> able to
> > >> focus this possibility of controlling functioning...It is the
> > >> possibility
> > >> of control which gives rise to the idea of purpose. But mankind has
> > >> in
> > >> reality no purpose, it functions, it controls its own functioning,
> > >> and it
> > >> continually creates justifications for this control. We have to
> > >> resign
> > >> ourselves to admitting that these are only justifications. Humanism
> > >> is
> > >> one of them, the last one’ (RAC: 102).
> > >>
> > >> I see no evidence that Foucault ever radically revised this position.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Kevin.
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Machiel Karskens
> social and political philosophy
> Faculty of Philosophy
> Radboud University Nijmegen - The Netherlands
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"