Subject: Re: Re[2]: Structural Marxism 
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999 18:13:51 +0200


In what sense do you bring together the terms "historical ontology"? For
instance, Hegel has a kind of historical ontology; how does yours match up
with and differ from that kind?

-- John

----- Original Message -----
From: Stuart Elden <Stuart.Elden-AT-clara.co.uk>
To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 1999 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Structural Marxism


> Joe
>
> A quick question, as I am rushed for time... How does Heidegger fit into
> this whole picture for you? I wonder if much of what you say could be
> explained by the Letter on Humanism - central to both Foucault and
Althusser
> in their break from earlier French understandings of Heidegger, humanism,
> Sartre and Marxism?
>
> I am working on a book chapter at the moment entitled 'Genealogy as
> Historical Ontology' which develops some of the ideas in my PhD - this
tries
> to suggest that Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche is central to what
Foucault
> is doing in his work (even before the labelling of it as genealogy) and
that
> understanding genealogy as historical ontology rather than [implicitly] as
> ontic history/historical sociology may be a more profitable way of
> appropriating Foucault's work.
>
> Best
>
> Stuart
>
>