David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In this work, I present an interpretation of two thinkers, Foucault and Arendt. I place these thinkers within a tradition of critical theory running from Kant to Nietzsche. The opposition between modernism and postmodernism, between its philosophical sources, Kant and Nietzsche, has been widely overstated, for example, in the polemical stance taken by Habermas in The Philosophical Discourse ofModenfity (1987). 1 am concerned to show that this way of mapping does Foucault and Arendt an injustice. Foucault and Arendt accept Nietzsche's critique of reason and Western thought and attack Kant's official philosophy, an analytical philosophy of truth. Yet they also appropriate Kant's reflection on the Enlightenment and revolution (Foucault) and his aesthetic judgment (Arendt). More importantly, Foucault and Arendt embrace postmodern sensibility not as an absolute given but as an attitude that must be - at the risk of inviting Nietzschean scorn - constantly checked and examined. For them, critique is based as much on a serious and sustained interrogation of historical experience as it is on a deconstruction of metaphysical philosophy. Recognizing the problems of attaching labels to Foucault's work and that of Arendt, I focus on the tensions and complexity of their work. There are tensions in Foucault's thought between totalizing/detotalizing impulses, discursive/extra-discursive theorization, macro/micro perspectives, and domination/resistance relations as well as between ethical-political commitments and archaeological detachment. There are also tensions in Arendt's thought between creative rupture and exercise in retrieval, between agonism and consensus as well as between existential engagement and philosophical withdrawal. Critical thought, which is experiment as well as problematization, must constantly live within a field of tension. In this light, I argue that these tensions provide the elements for the uniqueness and coherence of their work and that viewing these tensions as a source of flagrant contradiction fundamentally distorts their intentions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Amy Allen (2002). Power, Subjectivity, and Agency: Between Arendt and Foucault. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2):131 – 149.
Amy Allen (2003). Foucault and Enlightenment: A Critical Reappraisal. Constellations 10 (2):180-198.
Phillip Birger Hansen (1993). Hannah Arendt: Politics, History and Citizenship. Stanford University Press.
Christina Hendricks (2008). Foucault's Kantian Critique: Philosophy and the Present. Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (4):357-382.
Ronald Beiner (1995). Foucault's Hyper‐Liberalism. Critical Review 9 (3):349-370.
A. D. Barder & F. Debrix (2011). Agonal Sovereignty: Rethinking War and Politics with Schmitt, Arendt and Foucault. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (7):775-793.
Salim Kemal (1999). Aesthetic Licence: Foucault's Modernism and Kant's Post-Modernism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (3):281 – 303.
A. Degryse (2011). Sensus Communis as a Foundation for Men as Political Beings: Arendt's Reading of Kant's Critique of Judgment. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (3):345-358.
Simon Swift (2009). Hannah Arendt. Routledge.
Patricia Owens (2009). Between War and Politics: International Relations and the Thought of Hannah Arendt. OUP Oxford.
Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich (2002). Thinking with Hannah Arendt: An Introduction. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2):123 – 130.
Dianna Taylor (2002). Hannah Arendt on Judgement: Thinking for Politics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (2):151 – 169.
Avery Goldman (2010). An Antinomy of Political Judgment: Kant, Arendt, and the Role of Purposiveness in Reflective Judgment. [REVIEW] Continental Philosophy Review 43 (3):331-352.
Added to index2012-01-10
Total downloads4 ( #258,599 of 1,102,807 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #296,987 of 1,102,807 )
How can I increase my downloads?