-Michel Foucault, "Nietzsche, Genealogy, and History"
>From my experience in many online Foucault
communities, one can draw an almost limitless number
of conclusions from his works, yet "*THE* Foucault" is
often defended by the Fou-Cult -- folks who know that
they really understand him, whereas others don't and
so therefore have to be schooled in what The Master
really meant. Frankly, I'm fascinated with the bald
French philosopher, too. But he made a lot of
statements, like the above, that over the course of
his life, and sometimes even within single essays,
would contradict other things he'd say. However, he
also vigilantly defended his right to change his mind
at any time, which is fine. While I'm extremely
sympathetic to Foucault, I'm also sympathetic to some
of his critics on the left. Chomsky cited him as one
of the few PoMo philosophers worth getting into, but
in Noam's words, "even then you have to dig."
(Paraphrase.)
-B.
Chuck Grimes wrote:
"Let's back up here. Bush isn't a postmodernist. Bush is a liar. It's that butt simple. Rhetoric Department speech aside, the issue of lying as politics is a much more concrete point than anything availed by wondering about the postmodern interrogation of abstract truth.
And yet the two points, lying for political reasons, and an academic or philosophical investigation into the nature of truth are relevant to one another. Remember according to Strauss and the neocons, lying is the triumph of value or servicing the greater good over the material realities of the facts on the ground."