> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:09 AM, SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apparently some ancient text or favorite prof instilled the idea that any
> > talk of justice (or whatever) *requires* a belief in transcendence
> >
>
> All right, I'll bite: can you propose some form of it for us to consider
> that does not?
>
'Cuz that's what you have to do, unless your argument is that any particular sense of justice is fundamentally situated in time, space, specific material power relations and ideological conditions... at which point you're with Foucault. Its not like justice is ever tied to anything idealist and transcendent like Truth, The American Way, the universal Scales of or anything.
Modifying wikipedia, justice is either tied to organic harmony, divine command or natural law - read transcendent - or it is defined by power, mutual agreement or utilitarian consequences - read, as above, appropriate to Foucauldian analysis (in the present instance where we're taking either Chomsky's or Foucault's side).
>
>