Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 12:46 BST From: WIDDER-AT-VAX.LSE.AC.UK Subject: Re: Is Nietzsche obsolete? On Sun, 13 Aug 1995, Marc Demarest wrote: > > Amen. > >And it seems to me that post-structuralists asserting the >obsolescence of N is analogous to Lacanians asserting the >obsolescence of Freud. N is the long shadow cast over >post-structuralism, and I for one see this kind of thing as an >attempt to get out into the sun without having to acknowledge >that most of what post-structuralism has to say has already been >said, more clearly and more forcefully, by someone else, someone >who ultimately wanted to discover how to live better, not how to >get tenure. First of all, Amen to Erik's response to this (though I agree with Chris that this shouldn't necessarily be traced to Hegel as some sort of origin, though I disagree with Chris to the extent that he may think Hegel isn't a fairly important site in all of this). Second: geez, are we going to go through this again? A few months back, there were those comments about postmodernists being forever depressed, incapable of Nietzschean joy, etc. No names, no quotes, no nothing. I'm still not sure who the 'depressed' postmodernists are. Now this. Forgive me for not knowing my Lacan all that well, though I think I know my Lacanianism a bit better, but considering that Lacan built his thinking on the claim that he was the only one in France who actually read Freud properly, this claim about Lacanianism proclaiming Freud obsolete seems to be a bit iffy. Perhaps someone could tell me where this is said, and by whom. Also, I'm amused by this idea of 'post-structualism' not willing to acknowledge that all it has been saying has been said before. To my knowledge, there isn't post-structuralist around (certainly not one who knows anything about philosophy) who doesn't acknowledge this. I don't think anyone would deny that you can find deconstructionist-type arguments in Aristotle (well, everyone, that is, except for those who don't really know what a deconstructionist-type argument is). What, I wonder, were all those monographs Deleuze wrote, tracing conceptions of difference in past philosophies from Lucretius to Leibniz and Spinoza acknowledging, if not that these ideas are to be found in the past? When Derrida says "I always look to Heraclitus in the end," what do you suppose he's acknowledging there? Anyway, perhaps someone could also tell me where this supposed refusal of acknowledgment is to be found, and by whom? (Please don't mention Rorty: being an analytic philosopher who's dropped his foundations doesn't make one a 'post-structuralist', to the extent that the term has any substance to it at all). Finally, I love the tenure argument. For as we all know, postmodernism and post-structuralism are just being welcomed with open arms in departments all over the U.S. and U.K., aren't they? Everyone knows how much it thrives in philosophy, political theory, and especially IR theory departments. Isn't it obvious that the easiest way to get accepted by those in your university with tenure (what some would call the 'old guard') is indeed to publish posty-style work? Someone enlighten me, please. Nathan widder-AT-vax.lse.ac.uk --- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005