Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 23:40:57 EST
Subject: Re: wittgenstein, lyotard, foucault


Jon Roffe,

You make a good point about the later Wittgenstein.  Yes, I agree he is doing
something different from both British and Contential philosophy.  That is
probably why he remains one of the significant philosophers of the century.
What you say about becoming "more sensitive to the problems that seem non-
problematic" rings true to me concerning Wittgenstein. I would also add that
this is something that appeals to me in Lyotard as well.

I don't think you are straying off the path at all, but moving the discussion
forward.  I would say this about differends. There is at least one differend
between each of us every time we discuss these things.  A differend between
you and me, you and Hugh, Hugh and me and so on to infinity.

The value of discussion for me is to explore these differends.  If done well,
it makes us "more sensitive to the problems"  that once seemed problematic and
may in time reveal what our own representations hide (what cannot be
represented).  I recognise this will not save the world, but who still
believes in that old story today. It remains a form of politics as valid for
me as the general strike. 

I believe this is work each of us must do although I also recognise it is not
sufficient.

I do have one final question to your last post, however?  You discuss Foucault
in terms of the "critical activity of thought upon itself".  Taken this way,
the quote seems Kantian.  Now I know Foucault is dubious of Kant and the whole
project of the Enlightenment.  It forms for him the famous footprint in the
sand.

Lyotard, on the other hand, while he cannot be described as Neo-Enlightenment,
shows a marked tendency to return to Kant and to describe philosophy as
critique.

What is the differend here between Lyotard and Foucault? What do you or anyone
else out there make of it?