Nice replies people. A lot of good things to think about...
This is a philosophy paper, and you are casting the entire history of philosophy in terms of Freud? Heh.
I really don't understand why you would want to overlay a metanarrative over the history of philosophy as it has been done to death.
Yeah, these are definite worries. I decided on the theme a year or so ago in a bright flash of 'oh'.. It's a general attempt to sum up the difference or break i find in philosophy between Nietzsche and 'the rest'. I had always seen something rather suspect in the reliance on the logos and the general attempts to make 'the mother'(world, appearance, whatever) conform to its standards. I ended up defining this nature (along with the seemingly ever present need for a lot of philosphers to create a fully self-sufficient philosophical account of the life, the universe and everything.)
Our philosophy course has been pretty light on postmodern thought, so i only really became aware of the whole metanarrative concept very recently. However, i agree that there is a certain weakness in telling this story over the top of 2,000+ year's thought. I think i chose the freudian metanarrative as it may have seemed a bit 'edgy' or something before i actually researched a bit. I also really like being able to use 'motherfucking' in my title. Forgive me, i am young...
As i've been reading and writing for the project, i've come to realise that a large proportion of my words seem to focus upon the general misogyny of a lot of philosophy. I find interesting the way that the world, earth, appearance was made inert and useless during plato's time, and how this 'mother principle' is seen as either a force to overcome and control (nature, chaos etc) or is simply a mechanistic nothingness.
In a philosphy that is tied up fully in concepts of the God, Self and Substance, which we can define somewhat as 'the male principle', the 'feminine principle' always becomes slandered. If we are to only consider as real that which comes from God, has fixed identity and is eternal, the changing, the undefined and the chaotic (that with we can actually see as Alive) is left on the wayside as Nothing.
I'm trying to avoid bringing Freud into this for a few reasons. One is obviously that it's a philosophy degree i am working for - I was hoping to use the Oedipus myth in more philosophical terms without reference to Freud. However, it is obvious that this will be both hard to do (if not impossible) and wont really have much point to it. Inevitably my reading is pretty much the same as Freud's, so i need to figure out whether i'm to take this further into Freud's territory or try to move away from Oedipus and make something else out of this.
But I hope you're also going to write about some of the ways in which we can resist the Oedipalization of history, nature and humanity...
Hell yes!
This is where Nietzsche comes in... In Nietzsche i see a breaking away from all of this. I hope to show that his philosophy not only tries to give us something new, but does so in a totally different ground from the previous discourses of philosophy.
With its reliance on the philosophy of presence, God and Self, previous philosophies left themselves stuck. If one is to find truth, and give account of the world, one is constrained to the masculine principles of the discourse. If one tries to move outside of these, or to see in a different way, one becomes 'irrational', 'mad', 'sinful' or just wrong.
Nietzsche used a lot of the 'rules of the game' to bring it down upon itself and turn it in a new direction. He derides the search for essence and truth - he gives us one of the first accounts of Truth as something other than an essential part of the universe. In his Genealogical approach (later taken up by Foucault), he gives us ways of recounting history without recourse to Essence, Origin or Teleology. In his Eternal return of the same, he gives us a metaphysical account of time that does not point itelf always to the Golden Future or Past - it forces itself onto the moment of Now and gives it back its eternal nature.
Throughout his philosophy, we see resistance against any kind of life that directs itelf away from itself - he derides those who live for God, for the Future or for Truth - all these are just pretty names and fantasies given by people who hate life and seek death. In his 'God is dead' he points that all ideals are, have been and always will be dead, lifeless and as such - Pointless...
I like Nietzsche :-)
I suppose what i'm really trying to do is to show why all of this is important to us. I wish to show the Misogyny, Oedipality and power strangulation inherent to the modes of thought that grow from Plato/Christianity and put them in direct contrast with N.'s Philosophy - as a potential philosophy of freedom/revolution.
I'm just a little wary of reading Nietzsche in an anti-misogynistic light - while his metaphysics broke away somewhat from the Godly, he still seemed to have a few problems with 'the Father'. But as he said "When fighting monsters one must take care not to himself become a monster." Perhaps it would be important to point out his failures as well as successes in this area.
Sorry for the length of the post.. Thinking on my feet.. |
