>>Or in other words, there has to be such a thing as objective truth, because
>>it would be so politically awful if there were not.
>
>>I can't work out whether this is a contradiction, a tautology, a very deep
>>insight or a rather good joke.
Responded Steve:
>No, I think he's pointing to something the linguistic
>left affirms in principle and evades in practice--the
>notion that since all truth is contingent (duh), one
>must make a personal commitment at some point or
>become wholly irrelevant.
I'd go a step further. I reckon Jim's saying Foucault and his mates are pushing an epistemology which not only allows us to be irrelevant (an attractive thought at times), but underpins a take on human life which neither exists nor could: one without reason(s) and, therefore, one without agency.
Consciously to make a difference, to pursue one future moment as opposed to another - and for a reason that makes sense to us - is our lot, I reckon.
Didn't Marx respond to a question concerning the essence of human existence with the word 'struggle'?
Cheers, Rob.