From: "Glen Fuller" <spacedet-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: more on rorty Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 09:11:45 +0800 Nate and Nathan, I am jumping in here... I hope you don't mind, if you do, send me that Snow White email. Have you guys read Badiou's new book _Ethics_? I have discussed it with others but they are nasty pragmatists, and Badiou is definitely not their cup of tea. His anti-pragmatic stance I don't think is sustainable in everyday life, but I do like how he attacks 'victimhood', and it is similar to some of my own theories (hmm which I would call self-subjectification), and how he attacks the Other (which is almost the same thing as attacking victimhood, almost). I think it would have relevance when discussing Liberalism, and especially Rorty. Glen. > However, in _On > Revolution_, Arendt draws a relevant distinction between the realm of > activities that accompanies bodily needs and intimate relations, and > public-sphere speech acts. She even goes so far as to suggest that the > repression (or at least the resolution) private-sphere concerns is the > necessary precondition for action in the public sphere. Arendt associates > public-sphere activities with individuating identity-formation, which > reaches to the very heart of the question: what does Foucault's sex life > have to do with his work? Rorty does the very opposite: he associates the > private with self-creation and individuation while he, as you suggest, > simply subjects the public to an expectation of uniform liberalism. Anyway, > I guess my bringing this up wasn't that worthwhile. > > More in a second. > > Nate > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "newidder" <N.E.Widder-AT-exeter.ac.uk> To: <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 7:42 PM Subject: RE: more on rorty > >Sure, but what would be post-liberal about changing all that around? I mean, > >how strictly are we using the word "liberal"? I suppose you're right...we > >have to use it pretty strictly to avoid getting co-opted by people like > >Rorty. I get disgusted by what I read in the newspaper all the time...I > >guess I just never make the conscious association of what I see with > >liberalism. > > Your previous post suggested that by liberalism you meant standard > Anglo-American academic liberalism ("what people's problems are with liberal > politics. Because I share Rorty's politics..."), which Rorty accepts and tries > to defend by anti-foundationalist arguments. What you are saying here sounds > more like some sort of liberal sentiment ("I get disguested by what I read in > the newspaper all the time"). Even Foucault had some of those, and didn't > think they were all that bad, similar to the way Nietzsche accepted that the > sentiments of Christian morality (i.e., treat others well) were not so bad, it > was rather the ressentiment which underpinned them (See Daybreak, n. 103). I > don't know anyone who gets called a "post-liberal" who wants to see people > denied their rights, treated unequally, etc. > > Nathan > > > > > > >Thanks for correcting that unthought - kind of a significant and > >embarrassing one, at that > > No prob. Your welcome. > > Nathan > > > > >Nate > > Dr. Nathan Widder > Lecturer in Political Theory > University of Exeter > Department of Politics > Amory Building > Rennes Drive > Exeter EX4 4RJ > United Kingdom > Tel: +44 (0)1392 263 183 > Fax: +44 (0)1392 263 305 > http://www.ex.ac.uk/shipss/politics/staff/widder/ > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005