Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 16:20:50 +0100
From: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk (COLIN WIGHT)
Subject: Re: humanism


'm'

But it seems you do have some idea of Doug's usage of the term, and if
Foucault rejects this usage what then provides the moral grounds for acting.
I mean, why not 'prefer the destruction of the world to my little finger',
as one wag once put it? (Hume actually). 

The anti-humanism bit is an interesting spin. I don't know where the term
comes from but I do know that I first encountered it in pomo discourses who
set up poor old humanism as the naive village idiot (same as Rabinow sets up
poor old simple minded Chomsky to be the fall guy in the intro to his
Foucault reader; 'how simplistic can Chomsky get, I ask you, this man
actually believes there is such a thing as human nature, tut, tut, tut) so
as to expose it as flawed. This tactic is the oldest one in the book. There
is no better way to make your own arguments look sophisticated than to first
to make your opponents look simplistic.


Thanks,


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA

--------------------------------------------------------