'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
|
|
'An aphorism, properly stamped and molded, has not been "deciphered" when it has simply been read; rather one has then to begin its interpretation, for which is required an art of interpretation.' -- Nietzsche, 'On the Genealogy of Morals'
|
|
|
Uncritical reception of 'French Theory'
« Previous |
|Next »
|
|
|
March 10, 2006
Another useful quote from this review of French Theory. It is stated that 'ethics is what comes after Nietzsche's death of God, and Foucault's "death of man." Ethics, in other words, is what comes with the end of morality, with the end in the belief in the transcendental categories of good and evil.' There is a turn to Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus as a book of ethics.
What does that mean? Deleuze says:
...establishing ways of existing or styles of life isn't just an aesthetic matter, it's what's Foucault called ethics, as opposed to morality. The difference is that morality presents us with a set of constraining rules of a special sort, one that judge actions and intentions and considering them in relation to transcendental values (this is good, that's bad...); ethics is a set of optional rules that assess what we do, what we say, in relation to the ways of existing involved. (Deleuze, Negotiations, 1995, p. 100)
Why transcendental values rather than Hegel's conception ethical life? Why transcendental values when we live in particular way of life in consumer capitalism: one that Lyotard describes in the following terms:
Capitalism deculturalizes peoples, dehistoricizes their inscriptions, repeats them anywhere at all as long as they are marketable, recognizes no code marked by the libido but only exchange value: you can produce and consume everything, exchange, work, or inscribe anything you want if it comes through, if it flows, if it is metamorphosizable. (Lyotard, "Energumen Capitalism" in Sylvère Lotringer & Chris Kraus, eds., Hatred of Capitalism: A Semiotext(e) Reader New York, Semiotext(e) 200,1 pp. 229-241. p. 240).
What puzzles me is the way this discourse on ethics is accepted by those Anglo-Americans engaged int eh reception fo French Theory. Where is the critical thinking about framing ethics this way? Is it because the US is such a religious society in a fundamentalist sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary,
I am interested in how a critical appraisal of this notion of ethics might proceed. Any light you could shed would be much appreciated.