tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post1130883467139515737..comments2023-08-29T04:35:15.852-07:00Comments on The Trent Philosophy Blog: Foucault and the AbsoluteNeil Turnbullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07757980706607642699noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-22843023690136350792010-04-29T11:15:55.769-07:002010-04-29T11:15:55.769-07:00ah neil. Your intellectual captial and field of re...ah neil. Your intellectual captial and field of reference far outstrips mine. To put another interesting slant on things, maybe we can bring in Zizek. Perhaps to find what we are really looking for, our objet petit a, that is truth, or the good, we must be prepared to destroy and overcome the good, and the truth that we are striving for at present. Perhaps the ultimate sacrifice is that of the 'platonic good' in our search for something not only true but lasting...fred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-13035333680217565992010-04-29T06:16:53.847-07:002010-04-29T06:16:53.847-07:00Ah, Foucault the empiricist, interesting...
Empir...Ah, Foucault the empiricist, interesting...<br /><br />Empirically can't we see the good in operation in everyday life and see people actively seeking it as well? Isn't our Michel being perhaps a 'tad too cynical' for his own good here? <br /><br />You can quote Foucault but I can quote Simone Weil (whose left wing credential are in fact impeccable; fought against Franco, member of French resistance etc). Here goes:<br /><br />'The true road exists. Plato and many others have followed it. But it is open only to those who, in recognising themselves to be incapable of finding it, give up looking for it, and yet do not cease to desire it to the exclusion of everything else. To these it is given to feed on a good which, being situtated outside this world, is not subject to any social influences whatever'<br /><br />Neil TurnbullNeil Turnbullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757980706607642699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-89189163716521792692010-04-28T13:56:36.588-07:002010-04-28T13:56:36.588-07:00Of course, and again I'm only referencing Fouc...Of course, and again I'm only referencing Foucault (whether, indeed, he allows for absolutism). It would be difficult to sustain such a proposition, and would take a while. I do think Foucault;s genealogical works offer excellent examples of his thesis. The 'mad'discourse was physically classified, isolated, and pacified. We have, also, the sheer, and obvious empirical evidence that different societies have different truths, generally in their histories, dissenters of these values were violently suppressed. Our own passion for liberal democracy was born of the bloodiest conflict in english history (proportionately speaking- 10% of the male population died). Whilst I am ever searching for an absolute and peaceful truth, the world seems reluctant to offer itfred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-124759867984971682010-04-28T13:37:08.510-07:002010-04-28T13:37:08.510-07:00Well, of course it depends on what point of view y...Well, of course it depends on what point of view you take (what doesn't)!<br /><br />I am asking why you think that war is an ontological absolute rather than something historically relative? <br /><br />Why is violence the only way to change the world's problems? This proposition is a need of a certain amount of argumentative support don't you think?<br /><br />NeilNeil Turnbullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757980706607642699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-24449871441591008352010-04-28T13:26:01.173-07:002010-04-28T13:26:01.173-07:00the actual quote is: 'This discourse is essent...the actual quote is: 'This discourse is essentially asking the elliptical god of battles to explain the long days of order, labour, peace, and justice. Fury is being asked to explain calm and order.' (Soc Must be Defended, p.54)fred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-33581881371429309122010-04-28T13:18:26.891-07:002010-04-28T13:18:26.891-07:00Again, it depends on the view you take. For Foucau...Again, it depends on the view you take. For Foucault, any talk of peace, reason, or rationality is simply a mask to hide the violent tension that upholds the seemingly tranquil status quo. Violence is the source of all the world's problems but it is also the only way to really change them, I forget the actual quote from 'society must be defended' but to paraphrase: 'analysing society is like asking the god of war to explain peace. Fury is commenting on tranquility.'fred, dux hominumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06310017562311163045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8331917990627226586.post-20695582629005872982010-04-28T12:22:11.924-07:002010-04-28T12:22:11.924-07:00This raises a very important issue - namely the re...This raises a very important issue - namely the relationship between philosophy and war.<br /><br />In many ways war provides the historical backdrop to many important examples of continental philosophy in the 20th century. Heideggerean philosophy in particular attempts to make philosophical sense of war as a new existential condition. This can be seen in his concern with the ever present possibility of death, the need to be resolute in the face of it and the idea that industrialisation is effectively global militarisation (an idea that was to find its fullest expression in the ideas of Virilio). <br /><br />For Heideggereans, Foucault included, war is the ontology of our present. As such, it is an ontology that demands a decision that is at once existential and political (as Fred says, it demands that we work out 'whose side we are on'). <br /><br />However, why should we let 'marshall themes' shape our philosophies? What about onologies of peace? Surely they should be considered alongside the new ontologies of war?<br /><br />Neil TurnbullNeil Turnbullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07757980706607642699noreply@blogger.com