[lbo-talk] Prose Style, was Time to Get Religion

[Jerry Monaco]

On 12/10/06, Ted Winslow <egwinslow at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> Angelus Novus wrote:
>
> > The Nietzschean, Heideggerian, Foucault/Deleuze/Negri
> > camp, and Butler would usually be ordered into this
> > camp.
> >
> > Both sides, interestingly enough, ground themselves in
> > Marx and Freud, but for entirely different reasons.
> >
> > It's interesting to see Butler associated with Hegel.
> > Oh well, time to read Butler...
>
> The treatment of history in Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault is an
> explicit rejection of the treatment found in Hegel and Marx.  At the
> end of "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History," in the continuation of one of
> the passages I quoted,  Foucault says:
>

Ted, can I ask you why this is relevant in and of itself?  If it is or is
not an explicit rejection of Hegel and Marx, does it matter except as part
of an account of intellectual history?  Is that your only point? If so fine.

But what if Nietzsche, Heidegger and Foucault are in some ways correct and
also Hegel and Marx are in other ways correct.  Then shouldn't we use all of
their insights.  Or is it that the followers of Heidegger take his
pronouncement as something like holy writ and the followers of Marx take his
pronouncements as holy writ and thus if you are a follower of one you can't
accept the insights of the other?

Frankly, such interventions are basically frustrating of attempts to trying
to find out what happens and why it happens.  I am frustrated at myself when
I sink to it.

Jerry Monaco
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <../attachments/20061210/ff249095/attachment.htm>