You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Excellent expansion on their previous rant by Infinite Thought called the trouble with philosophy continued.

It is two-fold. The seizing of continental philosophy by a kind of adolescent thought which then games out into an Oedipal scenario, and the dismissal of the real by the observer so entrenched in their examination, their view, they have lost all sight of its tangibility.

And it is a problem that Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze grappled with but Baudrillard and Derrida dismissed. The daddy-mentor-slave-master dilemma. Or, that the disciple is not the conduit to truth but a slave in the discourse. And there is nothing more annoying than a shutting down of a debate with, to quote John Searle:

“With Derrida, you can hardly misread him, because he’s so obscure. Every time you say, “He says so and so,” he always says, “You misunderstood me.” But if you try to figure out the correct interpretation, then that’s not so easy. I once said this to Michel Foucault, who was more hostile to Derrida even than I am, and Foucault said that Derrida practiced the method of obscurantisme terroriste (terrorism of obscurantism). We were speaking French. And I said, “What the hell do you mean by that?” And he said, “He writes so obscurely you can’t tell what he’s saying, that’s the obscurantism part, and then when you criticize him, he can always say, ‘You didn’t understand me; you’re an idiot.’ That’s the terrorism part.”

I recall vividly a discussion I had as a teenager with an Hegelian disciple who when I began to discuss Foucault would dismiss him along the lines of: “Foucault says nothing that is not in Hegel.” Which is a discussion of real importance but it makes the Hegelian disciple appear as a kind of parvenu. Because in a sense they are literally and figuratively letting themselves down and the whole school down. (And I’m acutely aware of the irony of my attempt to extricate myself from the mentor/pupil relationship by defending Foucault by the way!)

Infinite thought says: “I'm sure that people in much more serious physical trouble - heavy addiction, sickness exacerbated by poverty, those who have suffered bodily abuse - are unlikely to celebrate their oh-so-exciting degradation and would probably prefer access to free, high-quality healthcare. There is something horrible, truly horrible, about people who have access to clean water, enough food and adequate shelter celebrating 'the rot of the flesh' and 'contamination' as if it were sexy. Go and lick open wounds and tube seats if you think it constitutes an interesting philosophical position”.

Which is spot on. Cultural Theory particularly in the USA say 10 years ago was awash with the analysis on the aesthetics of the body. And it’s frightening because it disassociates itself from a body that sickens and dies.

I am utterly enthralled by Baudrillard’s work and in many ways he did have the last word on a whole host of problems in Foucault’s work. But because he was so disengaged, the elements of care and kindness in Foucault’s life and work remained elusive.

As Infinite thought summarises:

“If we are interested in an idea, or many ideas at once, can we simply pursue these interests (whilst acknowledging what it means to do so) without becoming petty about it? Without reducing it to a choice (which is no choice at all) between top trumps or private property..."