Subject: Re: wittgenstein, lyotard, foucault
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 16:01:47 PST


Hi all

thanks for the interesting and enlightening responses to my posts on 
Wittgenstein and Foucault.  I decided to spend some time thinking about 
what to write rather than just shooting from the hip, hence my late 
response.

First of all, Eric, thanks for the info re Schopenhauer.  I've never 
read very widely the secondary material on Wittgenstein, and the 
Tractatus is not my favourite of his works, so I must plead ignorance 
here, and be thankful for the help.  I'll check out that book you 
suggested.


>Would you still concur with me on the basic point I was attempting to 
mak>e in
>my previous post?  I was really arguing for the following.   Although
>Wittgenstein himself was somewhat naive concerning power structures, 
when> his
>philosophy is modified along these lines by Lyotard, Foucault, and, 
yes, >even
>old Zarathustra,  it becomes possible to develop it in new ways which 
nei>ther
>Wittgenstein nor the entire British school of analytical philosophy 
ever
>envisioned.  It can now become the basis of a radical social critique; 
on>e in
>which the Differend plays a significant role.

After some thought, a response:  It seems to me that Wittgenstein's 
'later' philosophy is dissimilar to both what is sometimes glibly called 
'Continental' thought, and to the British tradition that is referred to 
above.  Essentially, it is not about establishing anything, or arguing 
for anything, but about making the philosopher more sensitive to the 
problems that seem non-problemmatic, or remain invisible most of the 
time.  It is about making thought more agile, more creative.  I don't 
think (but I stand to be corrected) Wittgenstein is trying to establish 
anything.  Thus, his focus on language could be seen as an expression of 
this philosophical interest, rather than the bottom line in his thought.

>I hope this helps us return to our discussion of the Differend and to 
ask
>again the old questions in even more radical ways =93What is 
philosophy?

Yes, precisely!  This is why I find Lyotard's use of Wittgenstein 
exciting.  And here's where I find the link between Foucault and 
Wittgenstein illuminating.  Foucault says that philosophy is "the 
critical activity of thought upon itself" - much the same as how I 
conceive of Wittgenstein's thought.  And here, too, we find a place for 
language _and_ power.  Wittgenstein shows how language is trickery.  The 
issues of power, interest and inequality are never broached.  But 
Foucault offers a way of bringing these things together, as does 
Lyotard.

However, to take up a point Hugh made, I don't think Foucault simply 
offers interesting ways of analysing power.  In fact, what he offers is 
a critique of the dominant understandings of power that we have from 
both Marx and Weber.  Power, according to Foucault, is not oppressive, 
but essentially creative and constructive.  So, for me, the differend 
becomes a powerful tool in coming to terms with some of the features of 
the unequal 'ontology of the present'.

I hope both that this mail doesn't stray too far off the path, and that 
it makes sense.  Thanks for the great discussion.

Jon Roffe

P.S. does anyone else on this list live in Australia?  It would be 
interesting to discuss the differend that is currently being played 
large in the national political arena re indigenous people's land 
rights.

Another thought:  what differends are operating within this mailing 
list?


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com