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
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005