Power vs. Justice

[elijahcraig]

An essay on Foucault vs Chomsky debate, Power Vs. Justice: http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/chomfouc01.htm

Which obviously goes with Chomsky, being a "Justice Site".

The debate itself, between C and F: http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm



The topic is whether Justice trumps Power or Power trumps Justice.

Nietzsche sides with Foucault, or rather Foucault sides with Nietzsche, whereas Chomsky sides with any number of philosophers who were directly influenced, or part of, the Enlightenment.

What are your views? Agree with whom? View both as wrong?

[thatCHEr]

I agree with Foucault. No suprise considering postmodernism is one of my favourite social theories, though.

Very interesting link though, I never knew these two came into contact.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I hate postmodernism, anyone who uses the phrase "meta-narrative" is an idiot.

[elijahcraig]

I hate postmodernism as well, it has ruined artistic culture with its, as Bloom calls it, "school of resentment," most of the time alongside political ideologies.

[thatCHEr]

Yeah. Grand-narrative is so much better.

Edit: I missed elijahs response.


I hate postmodernism as well, it has ruined artistic culture with its, as Bloom calls it, "school of resentment," most of the time alongside political ideologies.
Postmodernism is fairly apathetic, and doesn't really support any political ideology. Because it rejects the idea that you can analyze of sum up "society" in any way. So right-wing and left-wing ideologies are both criticized.

Although it has contributed quite a lot to feminism recently, which I would think you Marxists should like.

[Misodoctakleidist]

lol, I was refering more to the concept not the word.

[thatCHEr]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2004, 08:33 PM
lol, I was refering more to the concept not the word.
Eh, me too. The theory of there being multiple narratives, none more valid than the other is no worse(well in my opinion its better, and far more realistic) than the theory of society being governed by one or two core concepts. Such as power, or gender, or class, etc. The latter oversimplifies things, in my opinion.

[thatCHEr]

I was asked earlier what was up with my name and avatar, but have forgot where it was it was asked. It is somewhat on topic here, so heres the commentary that was on the site I found it:
"Although many people know little of his life and times, Latin American revolutionary hero Ernesto Che Guevara has been the increasingly familiar face on a billion T shirts ever since his death in 1967. Conversely there is still, as yet, no specific iconic image of Britain's first Female Prime Minister, the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. Presenting her sympathetically as young and attractive and against a blue background while at the same time appropriating the trappings and posture of the Che icon, not only playfully offends the political sensibilities of both camps, but more importantly extends the debate to question our current obsession with celebrity iconography itself. The intention is a deliberately gentle post-mod ambiguity"

[elijahcraig]

Postmodernism is fairly apathetic, and doesn't really support any political ideology. Because it rejects the idea that you can analyze of sum up "society" in any way. So right-wing and left-wing ideologies are both criticized.

Although it has contributed quite a lot to feminism recently, which I would think you Marxists should like.

Foucault was not apolitical. He was a far leftist, he is also one of the most prominent postmodernists. If you read a book like “The Anti-Aesthetic,” a collection of essays on postmodern culture, you get a picture which supports the idea that postmodernism is a rabid supporter of political ideologies of the Left. Even if it doesn’t correspond with their philosophical findings.

I like some postmodernism, Beckett, etc. But for the most part, I disagree.

I posted a link in the “Greek Woman” section in Philosophy to Harold Bloom’s criticisms of the School of Resentment produced by “Feminism” and other ideological positions.


Such as power, or gender, or class, etc. The latter oversimplifies things, in my opinion.

Gender is not existent from a Feminist (and a Linguist) point of view. This is something I agree with. It is “Sex,” not “gender.”

Although I don’t agree that it “oversimplifies anything.” Would anyone disagree that there is a duality of the sexes? Is that a simplification? This could go for many (or all) things, a duality of opposites.