For what it's worth I believe that I understand and agree with Settembrini's position.  The main problem with discussing conflicting play styles (espeicially in the abstract) is that behind every simple statement "I like punching orcs" or "I like story games that explore narrative premises" is the unexpressed follow-up "because its the best way to play".  I use humor, mostly self-denigrating, to deflect that truth in something like half of everything I write on the internet.  That's why I state my particular preferences as merely "punching orcs" or equally ridiculous phraseology.

As human beings we judge each other on silly things like what music we listen to or what sports we follow or how we play rpgs all the frickin' time.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, I figured you'd go after Miller, rather than the criminologist, the NY Times, and the most profound anti-postmodernist thinker of our age.

I'm 100% sure you didn't, but it's fun to claim it after the fact and seem remarkably prescient, isn't it? The funny thing about prophesying is that it's only impressive if it happens _beforehand_.

QuoteI had to include his name for the sake of intellectual honesty, in the hopes that you would not sink to trying to beat up on the biographer in the vain hope that people would ignore the fact that it was not the "right-wing rags" but highly respectable sources that criticize Foucault's actions at the end of his life.

Who are you quoting as saying "right-wing rags"? I didn't. I read the New Criterion, First Things, and Commentary quite regularly, to name only three  right wing magazines that I respectfully disagree with. As for choosing the biographer, it's an obvious choice because he's the source of the anecdote. I don't have to deal with the others because they're relying on his work.

QuoteShit, one of my professors in University was at Berkeley at the same time as Foucault, knew him, and described him as "a man devoid of any values".

How does he have the relevant expertise to make such an evaluation?

QuoteThat pretty well sums it up. The postmodernist route is a route that leads to running around infecting people with AIDS for your own kicks, because nothing actually matters.

Ah, I didn't realise you were parroting Roger Kimball's mini-bio of Foucault in Experiments Against Reality until now.

QuoteAh, right, let's believe the rampant post-modernist who's entire career depends upon Foucault's integrity, rather than an intellectual giant like Tallis, or a "right wing rag" like the NYT.

What expertise does Tallis have in evaluating the anecdote? What proof does he have of it? Clare O'Farrell is a Foucault scholar - she specialises in examining his work and life. Raymond Tallis is not. And once again, you really should stop calling the NYT a "right wing rag". It's rather silly.

QuoteMaier-Katkin's report was a very interesting criminological analysis of Foucault's actions and whether he was or was not knowingly and willingly infecting people with AIDS while understanding the implications of this.  His conclusion was the Foucault should have faced criminal charges, had he not died from AIDS-related complications long before anyone figured out what he was doing.

That seems to be a lie, since the only paper that Google Scholar can pull up by Daniel Maier-Katkin about Foucault deals with a historical overview of a major criminologist reading and editing Foucault's work. I assume you would have already cited it if you had actually read the paper.

QuoteFoucault is one of the 20th Century's greatest monsters. Not on a personal level, though what he did was deeply sick, and he was obviously a fucked up human being with absolutely no inner compass, but on an ideological level. He is responsible for the erosion and onward route to collapse of our civilization.

RPGPundit

I heard he once kicked a puppy too. Your claims have no support, rely on shoddy fallacies and cheap rhetoric, and involve citing the contents of texts  in a distorted manner which relies on the unwillingness of others to look closely into them. Foucault certainly did some dumb things in his life - his support for the Iranian revolution most notably - but you're ignoring the legitimate grounds of criticism to whine about the silliest libels you can google up.

Quote from: droogPseudoephedrine seems to have some understanding of what he's talking about. So do I, though I don't quite have the vocabulary for it.

Hah, thanks. I think I understand what he's driving at, even though I disagree with it. I think morality and moral theories can valuably inform how we play games, especially social games, by telling us how people ought to interact with one another. I'm dubious about claims that a particular playstyle is morally superior to any other.

Ok, the point where you accuse the other guy of not reading what he said he did is where I get off the boat, since you obviously have nothing to go on in your argument but vile slander against me and a desperate wish that Foucault was actually a lovely guy and not a sado-masochist sex fiend who knowingly infected people with AIDS, something that is only the worst-kept secret in postmodern academia.  Fuck, even Noam Chomsky said that the the dude believes in nothing.

And in the end, even if it were all the biggest misunderstanding in academic history, and Foucault was really an innocent little angel who really had no idea that being infected with AIDS and engaging in sadomasochistic sex without protection on a massive scale would be ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, the point remains, behind all that, that with his brand of Postmodernism there'd be absolutely no way to condemn someone who did exactly that.

That's checkmate right there, fucker. The real reason Foucault's a monster isn't because he infected a few thousand people with AIDS, its because he created the philosophical excuse for someone to, say, unleash biological warfare that kills 98% of the planet, or murder babies just because, or send muslims to guantanamo. His philosophy at worst justifies these sorts of things, and at best provides absolutely no fucking defense against them, because Foucault's thinking ultimately argues that whoever can force his way is justified to do so.  :hehe:

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditOk, the point where you accuse the other guy of not reading what he said he did is where I get off the boat, since you obviously have nothing to go on in your argument but vile slander against me and a desperate wish that Foucault was actually a lovely guy and not a sado-masochist sex fiend who knowingly infected people with AIDS, something that is only the worst-kept secret in postmodern academia.  Fuck, even Noam Chomsky said that the the dude believes in nothing.

And in the end, even if it were all the biggest misunderstanding in academic history, and Foucault was really an innocent little angel who really had no idea that being infected with AIDS and engaging in sadomasochistic sex without protection on a massive scale would be ultimately responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, the point remains, behind all that, that with his brand of Postmodernism there'd be absolutely no way to condemn someone who did exactly that.

That's checkmate right there, fucker. The real reason Foucault's a monster isn't because he infected a few thousand people with AIDS, its because he created the philosophical excuse for someone to, say, unleash biological warfare that kills 98% of the planet, or murder babies just because, or send muslims to guantanamo. His philosophy at worst justifies these sorts of things, and at best provides absolutely no fucking defense against them, because Foucault's thinking ultimately argues that whoever can force his way is justified to do so.  :hehe:

RPGPundit

Actually, it claims just the opposite. Foucault was tremendously interested, both theoretically and politically, in human liberation. He thought that power structures in society had to be harnessed to provide the basis of that liberation, like transforming the mental health industry from being focused on prison-like asylums to less dominating institutions. Had you read his philosophical work, or even an interview with him, you'd know this.

I only claim you're lying because you are. Take for example, your claim that Noam Chomsky claimed that Foucault believed in nothing.

Heck, here's Chomsky's own words discussing "post-modernism":

Quote from:  Noam ChomskyPhetland suggests starting with Foucault --- who, as I've written repeatedly, is somewhat apart from the others, for two reasons: I find at least some of what he writes intelligible, though generally not very interesting; second, he was not personally disengaged and did not restrict himself to interactions with others within the same highly privileged elite circles.

Chomsky is certainly highly critical of Foucault, and claims that he is unintelligible at times, but he doesn't claim that he "believes in nothing". In "Justice and Power", Chomsky and Foucault's extended debate is filled with mutual recognition of the work the other is doing, albeit they do disagree with one another. I don't know where you got this idea that Chomsky believes that Foucault believes in nothing, but it's simply wrong.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineI only claim you're lying because you are. Take for example, your claim that Noam Chomsky claimed that Foucault believed in nothing.

Heck, here's Chomsky's own words discussing "post-modernism":



Chomsky is certainly highly critical of Foucault, and claims that he is unintelligible at times, but he doesn't claim that he "believes in nothing". In "Justice and Power", Chomsky and Foucault's extended debate is filled with mutual recognition of the work the other is doing, albeit they do disagree with one another. I don't know where you got this idea that Chomsky believes that Foucault believes in nothing, but it's simply wrong.

Generally, I just write "source?"

Quote from: James McMurrayGenerally, I just write "source?"

Good advice. Thanks.

Quote from: RPGPunditTry that infamous right-wing rag, the New York Times; also Prof. Raymond Tallis,  criminologist Daniel Maier-Katkin, and of course Foucault biographer James Miller.


RPGPundit

And now, like any good scholar, you'll have to quote chapter and verse to back up your point. Not the one about Foucault being an SM homosexual, but the one about him deliberately spreading AIDS.

James Miller, wow. That's like Stassinopoulos on Picasso.

My question is "What was Foucalt's playstyle, and did he believe it to be morally superior?"

Quote from: droogWell, I for one think you're on to something, and it's something worthy of discussion. Moral philosophy isn't my strong point (I'm a political philosophy guy), but others are raising some interesting stuff.

And the rest of you: how well do you speak German? You need to give Settembrini a chance if you don't want to look like parochial louts. If you don't want to participate, piss off. I say that in the nicest possible way.

I'm German/English bilingual by now, and for the most part Settembrini is making perfect sense.

My question is "What system would you use if you wanted to run a campaign  based on Foucalt's Pendulum"

Regards,
David R

Call of Cthulhu or Unknown Armies.  You want something that can handle the mechanics of going batshit crazy.

Quote from: James McMurrayMy question is "What was Foucalt's playstyle, and did he believe it to be morally superior?"

Foucault was clearly a killer DM.

Quote from: RPGPunditShit, one of my professors in University was at Berkeley at the same time as Foucault, knew him, and described him as "a man devoid of any values".

I'm teaching at Berkeley, and you're right. I feel so... empty.

The New Tork Times is as anti-intellectual as they come. Check out the Derrida obituary. Derrida bores me to death, but anything the NYT has to say about culture is worthless.

Still waiting for the link to that crimonology thingie? Sounds fascinating.

Quote from: RPGPunditFoucault is one of the 20th Century's greatest monsters. Not on a personal level, though what he did was deeply sick, and he was obviously a fucked up human being with absolutely no inner compass, but on an ideological level. He is responsible for the erosion and onward route to collapse of our civilization.

RPGPundit

So, let me get this straight...

Foucault = Ron Edwards

Quaint pre-68 humanism = good gamin'

Right?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine.... Habermas has done tons of work on this very subject, showing how norms are constructed without requiring us to buy into the Enlightenment's conceptions of persons, rationality, society and happiness and their attendant aporias.

I find it rather strange that you would enlist Habermas in support of your overall position, given his broadly Kantian framework, and the fact that he does make a distinction (in his various discussions of the 'ideal speech situation' and its role in justifying norms in the 'post-metaphysical age') between 'moral questions' (which must satisfy the test of universalizability) and 'ethical/existential/aesthetic' questions (which need not be universalizable).   Moreover, Habermas is quite explicit in seeing his work as a continuation of what he calls the 'Enlightenment project'.

 

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs for Kant's aesthetic and moral theories, they're problematic.

Perhaps, but the same could definitely be said about Foucault and the neo-Wittgensteinians!

The fact of the matter is that Kantian moral theory (despite being considered 'problematic' by people with a fondness for postmodern cant)remains one of the two dominant approaches in contemporary ethics (the other being, of course, consequentialism).  Just look at the recent and current work of Christine Korsgaard, T.M. Scanlon, John Rawls, Barbara Herman, Onora O'Neill, Habermas, Steve Darwall (my former PhD advisor, I should note), etc., to see the health of Kantian moral theory in recent decades.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine...
Saying that he's "still taken seriously today" elides the layers of interpretation, refinement and development that lay over any reading of Kant, and especially any defense of his ideas by a modern philosopher.

Well, no kidding.  Of course many contemporary philosophers who work within a 'Kantian framework' have modified and refined many aspects of his views -- some quite radically, others less so.  I was simply trying to be brief, not deliberately mislead anyone.