+
From: Erik D Lindberg <edl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
+
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:30:49 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996 nologos@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Erik D. Lindberg writes:
>
>
> >Thomas's response may be the best one yet to one of the innaugural
> >questions of this thread: why the turn toward ethics. Without the Truth
> >(as a link between reality and justice), one needs (if one is to act)
> >something like an ethos (situated, perhaps, half way between the dream of
> >Truth and "mere" opinion or empathetic inclination).
>
>
> Yes, but doesn't this again raise the question of why Foucault's ethics
> deals one's relationship with one's self and not necessarily (or directly at
> least) other people. Compare, for example, with the deconstructive ethics
> of Levinas in which the non-thematizable Other leads to a radical,
> pre-cognitive responsibility.
>
>
You got me. Foucault's sublime? A politics of anti-ressentiment starts
at home (a radical version of "think globally, act locally)? What do you
think?
Erik D. Lindberg
Dept. of English and Comparative Lit.
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53211
email: edl@xxxxxxxxxxx
------------------