Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:24:17 +0600 From: randomvioletz-AT-mindless.com ( =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C5LJa=E9?= ) Subject: Re: foucault and sokal "It is, for instance, pretty suicidal for embattled minorities to embrace Michel Foucault, let alone Jacques Derrida." While the responses so far seem to make perfect sense I've choosen to take on this qoute in a diffrent manor. What seems to be happening here is Sokal seems to beleive that there is a logical and progressive change between the ideas of Jaques Derrida and Michel Foucault. That is he seems to imply that Derrida and Foucault are some how related. Wahl ,however, would tell us that Derrida and Foucault are related only by "the schema of structuralism that Derrida attacks is more or less the same as the one to which Foucault adheres." In essence Michel & Jaques are opposites. Derrida acts as the anti-thesis to Foucault's beleifs. In this interpretation then Sokal seems to be the one offering the veiw that would be "pretty suicidal" to mintorites to adopt. That is in Sokal's interpretation the views of Derrida & Foucault are both "pretty suicidal" for minorties to adopt. Yet due to Wahl one sees that Derrida & Foucault are opposites. they are thinkers on two diffrent sides of the Gamut. Hence Sokal's interpretation becomes tyranny. It, in effect, says that minorties are hopeless. At the very least if minorties adhered to one philosophy one would think they would have some hope from their perspective. however Sokal would tell us other wise. effectively he seems to wish that minorties would lose all hope. Perhaps another holocaust is what Sokal wants. just this time the minorties would volentarily throw themselves n2 the great fire. I can't think of anything more Derridaen!
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005