Waging War, Waging Peace: The Weimar Right and Michel Foucault's Analysis of Power in the Mirror of the Archives

Nietzsche als Dichter. Lyrik – Poetologie – Rezeption

Commentary on Hutton A (2008) An adolescent ward; ‘in name only ’<i>Journal of Clinical Nursing</i> 17, 3142–3149

Nietzsche's Search for Philosophy: On the Middle Writings and Nietzsche's Free Spirit Works: A Dialectical Reading

Michel Foucault could well be considered a theorist of epistemic injustice avant la lettre. For Foucault, the dangers and historical effects of forms of rationality consist primarily in their entanglements with relations of social power, relations that subject individuals in both senses of the term: constitute them as subjects in and through their subjection to prevailing regimes of 'power/knowledge'. As Foucault emphasizes, his aim is to offer a rational critique of rationality; such a project, far from equating rationality or knowledge with power, attempts to study their relation. This chapter provides an excellent vantage point on the resources that Foucault's work offers for theorizing resistance to epistemic injustice. Foucault's analysis of power is a rich, subtle, and complex account that has proven to be tremendously productive for work in philosophy, the humanities, and the social sciences in the decades since his death.

Sin and Redemption in the <i>Hours of François I</i> (1539–40) by the Master of François de Rohan

Much has been written on Nietzsche's reconstruction ofIndian thought.1 Indologists and historians of reUgion have placed great importance on Nietzsche's appropriation of Indian themes; and, indeed, the philosopher's evocation ofIndia is varied and often tantaUzing. These evocations range from Nietzsche's use ofterminology and concepts to his penchant for quoting Sanskrit sources, as on the title page to Daybreak where he purportedly cites the Rig Veda: There are so many days that have not yet broken [Es giebt so viele Morgenrothen die noch nicht geleuchtet haben, (KSA 9: 413)] .2 One critic has, however, recently discounted the role that Indian thought played for Nietzsche, viewing such references as late and insignificant.3 This position views Nietzsche's evocation of India as specious and accuses him of the very triviauzation that he accused Schopenhauer ofcommitting (Untimely 3: 7). To my mind, this is a harsh judgment. While the traces ofIndia's influence in Nietzsche's work are elusive, and the philosopher did not view India with the transEuropean eye that he claimed (Sprung 83), India did, in fact, play a significant role in Nietzsche's final work. Although he may never have actuaUy readhis friend Deussen's monumentalwork on the Vedanta and was one ofthe few nineteenth-century educated Germans never to have read KaUdasa's Sakuntala (Sprung 86), he did read what he thought was an authoritative version ofthe Laws ofManu with care and used this treatise thematicaUy. In the following, I will examine Nietzsche's interpretation ofManu and the use to which he put this Sanskrit dharmasastra, which he did not know in the original but probably in the 1797 German translation ofJohann Christoph Huttner.

Nietzsche and Antiquity: His Reaction and Response to the Classical Tradition

Reviewed by: Kontroversen um Nietzsche: Untersuchungen zur theologischen Rezeption Martin Liebscher Peter Köster . Kontroversen um Nietzsche: Untersuchungen zur theologischen Rezeption [Controversies around Nietzsche: Studies on the Theological Reception]. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2003. 384 pp. ISBN 3–290-17277–5. In the introduction to the first volume of his Apokalypse der Deutschen Seele (1937–39), Hans Urs von Balthasar coins the phrase "Dionysos and the Crucified," consciously replacing Nietzsche's "versus" from Ecce Homo with "and." According to Balthasar, there is no difference between the world of Dionysos and the Christian world—the Dionysian reduced to its foundations shares common ground with Christianity. Thus, Balthasar's line of argumentation follows a fairly common theological reaction to Nietzsche's critique of religion. He simply appropriates the content of the critique for the purposes of the theological interpretation. When Balthasar's studies were reprinted in 1998, Peter Köster objected to this attempt to re-Christianize Nietzsche. Calling upon the likes of Franz Overbeck, Köster claims that Christian theologians like Balthasar have not been able to cope with Nietzsche's uncompromising atheism, an atheism that denies the possibility of returning to Christianity. Rather than trying to appropriate Nietzsche's thought for their own purposes, Köster thinks that theologians should simply confront the radical challenge that his thought presents. Köster's critique of the Apokalypse der deutschen Seele has now been republished in a collection of his articles that bear witness to his lifelong encounter with the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. His critical review of Balthasar's work exemplifies Köster's approach to Nietzsche, one that he describes as persistently posing fundamental questions to the philosopher from a theological point of view. The eight articles from 1972 to 2000 found in Kontroversen um Nietzsche: Untersuchungen zur theologischen Rezeption reflect Köster's attempt to persuade theologians to accept, on the one hand, the "anti-Christian" antagonism found in Nietzsche's work and, on the other, to appreciate the deeply spiritual-practical confrontation. The title of the volume is well chosen. It emphasizes the way in which Köster's persistent questioning of Nietzsche's philosophy puts him at the center of a number of crucial debates in both the theological and the philosophical reception of Nietzsche's work. In raising doubts about all-too-comfortable and seductive interpretations, he seeks to clarify the assumptions of the interpreters he examines and, in so doing, he sharpens their respective points of view. Moreover, by critically engaging with the work of opponents such as Martin Heidegger, Eugen Biser, and Wolfgang Müller-Lauter, Köster affords himself the opportunity to develop and unpack his own rendering of Nietzsche's thought. One of the cornerstones of Köster's interpretation is his insistence that Nietzsche's work constitutes a unified whole. Thus, he rejects those interpretations that posited an inner, even constitutive contradiction in Nietzsche's philosophy. This, however, was not a very popular position to take at the beginning of the 1970s. When he published his article, "Die Renaissance des Tragischen," in 1972, the work of interpreters such as Karl Jaspers, who placed contradiction at the center of Nietzsche's thought, and of Martin Heidegger still dominated Nietzschean scholarship. To present [End Page 71] his case in the aforementioned article, Köster contrasts his own reading of Nietzsche with Heidegger's position, highlighting the continuities in Nietzsche's philosophy from his early writings to his 1888 works. As is well known, Heidegger based his interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy primarily on the Nachlaß fragments from the late 1880s and, as a result, demoted Nietzsche's published works to mere Vordergrund, which naturally led to the virtual exclusion of The Birth of Tragedy from Heidegger's reading. Köster, however, adamantly rejects this view, and he tries to show that the decisive questions of Nietzsche's philosophy, ones that remained consistent throughout his productive career, had already been formulated in his first work. More specifically, he maintained that the philosophical issues found in both the early and the late Nietzsche could be expressed in one word, "Dionysos." In contrast to Köster, Heidegger argued that there were significant differences between the...

Nietzsche nella Rivoluzione conservatrice

In recent decades, resting state electroencephalographic (EEG) measures have been widely used to document underlying neurophysiological dysfunction in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Although most EEG studies focus on children, there is a growing interest in adults with ADHD too. The aim of this study was to objectively assess and compare the absolute and relative EEG power as well as the theta/beta ratio in children and adults with ADHD. The evaluated sample comprised 30 male children and 30 male adults with ADHD diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria. They were compared with 30 boys and 30 male adults matched by age. The mean age (±SD) of the children's group was 9 (±2.44) years and the adult group 35.8 (±8.65) years. EEG was recorded during an eyes-open condition. Spectral analysis of absolute (μV2) and relative power (%) was carried out for 4 frequency bands: delta (2-4 Hz), theta (4-8 Hz), alpha (8-13 Hz), and beta (13-21 Hz). The findings obtained for ADHD children are increased absolute power of slow waves (theta and delta), whereas adults exhibited no differences compared with normal subjects. For the relative power spectra there were no differences between the ADHD and control groups. Across groups, the children showed greater relative power than the adults in the delta and theta bands, but for the higher frequency bands (alpha and beta) the adults showed more relative power than children. Only ADHD children showed greater theta/beta ratio compared to the normal group. Classification analysis showed that ADHD children could be differentiated from the control group by the absolute theta values and theta/beta ratio at Cz, but this was not the case with ADHD adults. The question that should be further explored is if these differences are mainly due to maturation processes or if there is a core difference in cortical arousal between ADHD children and adults.

This paper provides a historical analysis of the genealogy of American policing and attempts to explain the return of state power to individual bodies. It argues that this return was informed by French counterinsurgency strategies in Algeria. Through engagement with Foucault's analysis of power and surveillance practices, it aims to shed light on and help us better understand and combat police brutality today.

This chapter says that Axel Honneth's critique of poststructuralist social philosophy offers a productive perspective for further developing the ethics of recognition, but also that the latter could benefit from a critical appropriation of certain aspects of poststructuralist thought. It begins with an examination of Honneth's critique of Foucault's analysis of power, in particular the tension between action-theoretic and system-theoretic perspectives that Honneth identifies as the crucial impasse in Foucault's theory of society. The chapter then turns to Honneth's critical confrontation with poststructuralist critiques of the modern subject, in particular his criticism of the Nietzschean-aestheticist concept of freedom. Finally, it considers Honneth's critical engagement with post-structuralist approaches to ethics, in particular his claim that Derrida's Levinasian ethics of care for the singular other presents a moral perspective that challenges Habermasian discourse ethics. Keywords: Axel Honneth; care; poststructuralist social philosophy; power; recognition

introduction of his book Foucault Beyond Foucault, Jeffrey Nealon writes of widespread critical consensus concerning historical development and trajectory of Foucault's work. Critics, he writes, seem have agreed that Foucault's mid-career work constituted dead-end, totalizing cage, an omnipresent panopticon with no possibility for any subjective or collective resistance.1 Broadly, consensus holds that two books of middle period, Discipline and Punish and The History of Sexuality: The Will Knowledge, fail by virtue of fact that they are successful, too totalizing and demoralizing and hence show power be irresistible.2 Hoping then answer question of resistance, Foucault develops themes of his late turning questions of ethical resistance, subjectivity, and of making oneself into work of art.3 Central this narrative is idea that there is in Foucault's oeuvre thematic/conceptual reversal, a turn which occurs between 'middle' and 'late' work, move from anti-humanism subject-centred humanistic approach, a renewed appreciation of Enlightenment subject, ethical arts of self, and resistance normalized totalization through individual action.4 Nealon's documenting of this critical consensus is extensive and persuasive; this essay will rely on this overview without repeating it. Key this narrative is idea of resistance. It establishes fact of 180-degree turn. And it is idea that has increasingly attracted attention of commentators and has led late Foucault's heightened importance in contemporary critical theory: In mid-1980s, Foucault's name was virtually synonymous with power . . . today [Foucault is] primarily referenced as thinker of subjectivity.5 Nealon is correct in marking hegemony of late Foucault;6 it is with this uptake of Foucault that this essay will engage, that is, with question of Foucauldian resistance and its relationship project of artistic self-creation. By placing so heavy an emphasis on turn, critical consensus certainly overlooks very substantial continuities that exist in oeuvre and overlooks much of rich historical and conceptual detail it contains. This is source of persistent irritation specialists well versed in nuances of Foucault's oeuvre, but in itself this irritation has had little impact on consensus's focus on broad thematic structures or on manner in which Foucault continues be deployed in contemporary critical theory. And in any event there is marked shift in Foucault's oeuvre, shift which is source of persistent exegetical question of periodization.7 Nealon concludes men that dominant narrative, at least in its broad outline, is hard dispute;8 he notes that wrongness of consensus readings are not the major problem with them (of course they are demonstrably 'right' as well).9 And accordingly, Nealon responds dominant reading of Foucault in three main ways, none of which attempt directly invalidate consensus itself. First, he returns oeuvre retrieve continuities between periods and nuance idea that Foucault abandoned middle period's interest in power. He does this by relying on idea of intensification.10 This is idea that Foucault's charting of emergent modes of power is an analysis of increasing intensity, economic visibility, or saturation: discipline's power over body is more intense (because more ubiquitous) than sovereignty's power; biopower is more intense again; and this in turn commits Foucault, in late to examining ever-moremicrological sites of power's deployment and functionality.11 The technologies of self, practices by which self cares for itself, are included as being Foucault's analysis of power at its most intense. Second, Nealon moves beyond dominant reading's heavy emphasis on late work by showing continued relevance of Foucault's work on power. …

Nursing practice needs a theoretical foundation. As in any other discipline, theories form the core of nursing science. They contribute to the definition of nursing and to the evolution of professional domains. Depending on their level of abstraction and their range ("grand theories") they can guide actions, have an orientating, but also a critical function. Furthermore, theories serve to legitimate and justify nursing in the public. This is especially important, if politics and society have high expectations in the nursing profession. The current concept of a critical theory of nursing science has a critical focus on repressions and deficits in nursing practice, but also is aimed at achieving reasonable nursing practice. This theory is emancipatorical and normative as well. It is following Foucault's analysis of power and explicating the "Frankfurt School of Critical Theory" as a critique of the conditions of working, understanding, recognising, self, time and nature.

The paper examines some philosophical aspects of translation as a metaphor for education—a metaphor that avoids the closure of final definitions, in favour of an ongoing and tentative process of interpretation and revision. Translation, it is argued, is a complex process involving language, within and among cultures, and in the exercise of power. Drawing on Foucault's analysis of power, Nietzschean contingency, and the inversion of meaning that characterises the work of Heidegger and Derrida, the paper points towards Ricoeur's notion of linguistic hospitality as the ethical dimension to the inevitably inadequate representation of the ‘other’. In this exploration, translation is posited as a creative and interpretive act—involving neither image nor copy, but poetic transposition. The power of language emerges in the close association between power and knowledge, in which the ability to define what is real generates the realm of future possibilities. From a Foucauldian perspective, language functions as a creative strategic relation—a form of power that structures the field of other possible actions. It is through the mediation of translation, the paper argues, that language communicates, leaving us with a world of difference (i.e. ‘lost in translation’), as both our curse and our blessing as part of the human condition and as part of our ethical endeavour as educators. The contingent and arbitrary nature of language problematises what appears natural and necessary, generating the possibility of creative dialogue.