File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_1997/lyotard.9712, message 50


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:12:39 -0800 (PST)
From: MATTHEW FRANCIS WETTLAUFER <mattw-AT-sfsu.edu>
Subject: Re: wittgenstein, lyotard, foucault




On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, jon roffe wrote:
> This type of thing (a differend?) is very much a part of the academic 
> culture, at least here in Australia.  Foucault referred to "the mimes 
> and tumblers who debate whether or not I am a structuralist".  I think 
> that in answering these types of questions, or more, defining oneself in 
> these terms, profoundly undercuts the philosophical task.  Some 
> questions must not be answered because the terms they are offered in do 
> violence to possibility.

Dear Jon,
Sorry for my delay--I'm in the midst of a paper that is due tomorrow.  I
agree with you though about this kind of situation.  I had just made my
presentation in class on the Introduction to Of Grammatology (by Spivak
in the English edition) talking mostly about Derrida's precursors:
Nietzsche, Freud, and Heidegger.  This person was very upset by the
things I had said.  That surprised me, as it often does, why anyone would 
get upset about Derrida.  But I wasn't going to be reduced to one
label--as Spivak would say, I like to wear many hats.

> 
> Thanks for what you wrote on Husserl, it was much appreciated.  A good 
> philosopher is an omnivore, so you've helped me get a taste for a new 
> kind of food.
> 
> I have nothing to add about Husserl, but one observation to offer.  Your 
> choice of method, or rather your way of working with the Husserl 
> material is interesting - it reminded me of Lyotard a bit, actually.  

Thankyou!  I'm happy that you liked what I wrote--please keep in mind
that my understanding of him is very minimal at this point.  I just
finished a very short essay by Levinas on Husserl called "Outside the
Subject".  It is a very fine essay--short but succinct.  Reading
Derrida's account of Husserl is a little harder for me.

> Well, Adorno talked of the impossibility and obscenity of writing poetry 
> after Aushwitz (spelling?).  I have often thought that this observation 
> has a lot to say to philosophy too.

I think Adorno grasps the sense, as in the German sense of the word Sinn
(sense, meaning, essence, feeling) better or more succinctly than Lyotard 
or Lacoue-Labarthe.  But I do like Lyotard's observation that Heidegger
failed to think deconstructively enough when it came to Sein und
Zeit--that his maintenance of the division between the ontic and the
ontological--a contrived split that falls back into philosophizing--
makes his political decision possible.  

Best wishes
Matt


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005