philosophy paper - foucault & nietzsche

17
Marico Gabrielle B. Navarro III- AB POS, 092581 PH101-QQ CIRCULATING MORALITIES: A READING OF NIETZCHE AND FOUCAULT THESIS: "Foucault's later work (The Use of Pleasure) prioritizes subjectivity and truth while the earlier work (Discipline and Punish, The History of Sexuality Vol. 1) focus on power and knowledge. More specifically, in the later work, Foucault aimed "to study the games of truth, and the relation of self with self and the forming of oneself as the subject" (UP, 6). In this later work, Foucault analyzed how particular truths are mobilized in the formation of the subject, such that one might be required to recognize oneself as a subject through these truths. For instance, Ancient Greeks recognized themselves as individuals through their gender, class, age, wealth, marital status, and so on. An important part of what it meant to be a subject, then as today, was to recognize that one has a certain truth to manifest in one's conduct. This focus on subjectivity and truth tends to prioritize the agency of the individual in that it highlights the action of the individual in constituting himself/herself as a subject through manifesting certain truths. Foucault's emphasis on the activity of the individual in constituting themselves makes it possible for us to spot openings for individual resistance, that is to say, activities we might perform to subvert or resist the power relations we are enmeshed in."

Upload: coco-navarro

Post on 21-Apr-2015

36 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

Marico Gabrielle B. Navarro

III- AB POS, 092581

PH101-QQ

CIRCULATING MORALITIES: A READING OF NIETZCHE AND FOUCAULT

THESIS:

"Foucault's later work (The Use of Pleasure) prioritizes

subjectivity and truth while the earlier work (Discipline and

Punish, The History of Sexuality Vol. 1) focus on power and

knowledge. More specifically, in the later work, Foucault aimed

"to study the games of truth, and the relation of self with self

and the forming of oneself as the subject" (UP, 6). In this

later work, Foucault analyzed how particular truths are

mobilized in the formation of the subject, such that one might

be required to recognize oneself as a subject through these

truths. For instance, Ancient Greeks recognized themselves as

individuals through their gender, class, age, wealth, marital

status, and so on. An important part of what it meant to be a

subject, then as today, was to recognize that one has a certain

truth to manifest in one's conduct. This focus on subjectivity

and truth tends to prioritize the agency of the individual in

that it highlights the action of the individual in constituting

himself/herself as a subject through manifesting certain truths.

Foucault's emphasis on the activity of the individual in

constituting themselves makes it possible for us to spot

openings for individual resistance, that is to say, activities

we might perform to subvert or resist the power relations we are

enmeshed in."

Page 2: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

I. Introduction: From Nietzsche to Foucault, Foucault to

Nietzsche

Foucault may as well be famed among social scientists as a

pioneer of social constructivists. The notion of the formation

of a subject within institutionalized truths crystallizes the

foundation of this particular branch of thought; or at least

captures and encapsulates the very essence of it. Through a

review of Foucault’s Discipline and Punish alongside the History

of Sexuality Volume One, this paper highlights Foucault’s

assertions regarding the formation of the subject vis-à-vis

constructed truths. At the same time, it will dissect its

antithesis, or as Foucault observes – the surfacing of subjects’

defiance against such constructed truths. An analysis of

Nietzsche’s work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra would in turn, be

reference to strengthen this claim through a discussion on his

most famous concept of the “ϋbermensch”. Later, the idea on

institutionalized moralities will again be opened with a

different light, with less stress on institutional molding as

imposition but more of a necessary exercise of power for the

purposes of establishing people’s aesthetics of existence, or

better placed in a collective, the aesthetics of society. A

more genealogical and historically structured analysis by

Foucault in the second volume of the History of Sexuality would

serve reference to this.

Before dissecting the power dynamics within their

individual works, it is important to operationalize the

relationship between Foucault and Nietzsche by reviewing the

congruence and divergence between their philosophies. One must

Page 3: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

note that Nietzsche had much influence on Foucault to the extent

that the latter gave praise and honored the previous by

attributing a new school of thought, postmodernism1, as a

substantial contribution in the field of political philosophy

and used similar themes as frameworks in his own writing. This

is evident first and foremost within comparisons laid out in the

Art of Ethics by Timothy O’ Leary where clear similarities or

better yet, transitions [developments from Foucault to

Nietzsche] are mapped out from the very beginning of the book.

Consequently, the disparity in period between Nietzsche’s time

and that of Foucault’s gave much appraisal to the former as to

the realization of his theory – that of the thinning,

disappearance even, of morality2.

Second in O’Leary’s line of comparison is that of the

‘aesthetics of existence’ if framed solely in Foucauldian terms.

Basically it talks of the idea of designing or ‘giving style’ to

one’s life3 – which is basically the heart of each parable within

Thus Spoke Zarathustra. What must be deducted (although I will

focus on this more extensively later) is the fact that while

there is much discussion that comes off as a critique on

institutionally fashioned moralities, particular dynamics of

stylized morals are imposed within Nietzsche’s parables as well.

As much as I regret having to introduce a critique as early as

in this section of the paper, it is simply more pragmatic for me

to question the way individualized moralities can be realized

1 Robinson, Dave. "Foucault and Nietzsche." In Nietzsche and

Postmodernism, 47. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books ;, 1999. 2 O’Leary, Timothy. "Introduction." In Foucault: The Art of Ethics (New

York: Continuum, 2002), 1.

3 O’Leary, 2-3.

Page 4: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

with the way moral assertions were pegged down by Nietzsche

through Zarathustra. Perhaps, as Dave Robinson asserts in his

work Nietzsche and Postmodernism, Nietzsche is indeed carried

off in thought by arbitrary ideas and “personal idiosyncrasy”

such that no strict method is followed4. Add to that is his

translator, R.J. Hollingdale’s assessment of him as one who is

guilty of mixing both emotion and intellection in his writing5.

Hollingdale also inserts a critique, an assertion of fault –

that Nietzsche is guilty of ‘excess’ as characteristic of this

explosion of feelings found in his metaphors and style of

language. This notion of excess as a fault is where I disagree

with the translator. As much as there is indeed an over-

compensation with regard to the style of writing, this very fact

concretely illustrates several notions of his teaching – after

all, doesn’t ‘going beyond oneself’ entail extremes,

exaggeration, of excess? Moderation, unlike its glorification

within the philosophies of Aristotle in the Nichomachean ethics,

is to Nietzsche a form of mediocrity6. To me, Nietzsche’s

excess is simply an embodiment of his philosophy such that he

goes beyond the institutionalized notions of political

philosophy as pure intellection but go in so far as to dwell in

a poetic delivery of phenomenological literature.

With secularization and sexual liberation at its peak, the

lines that seem to plague the advent of post-modernity is the

4 Robinson, Dave. "Foucault and Nietzsche." In Nietzsche and

Postmodernism, 47-48. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books ;, 1999. 5 R.J. Hollingdale, introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra; by

Friedrich Nietzsche(England: Penguin Books, 1969), 11-35. 6 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale

(England: Penguin Books, 1969), 190

Page 5: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

question – “how is one to live”? This particular question is

problematized by Foucault and Nietzsche in their discussion of

ethics; put quite simply, the deregulation of morality. They

argue that morality has either ceased to exist or is no longer

controlled by a set of laws7. By laws it is arguable that they

speak of the highly conservative, self-entitled piousness of the

Catholic Church. Consequently, people have begun to distinguish

their own values based on their own deliberations – which are

often, given the growing liberal society, is free of dignified

inducements.

Before we get lost within all these assertions on morality,

it is necessary that we define it by virtue of how it was used.

Let us question - What is morality? In his construction of the

idea of “genealogy” (in reference to Nietzsche’s genealogy of

morals8) to repudiate the conception of knowledge through a

linear account of history9, Foucault lacks a concrete definition

by which he terms the word “morality”. A literal reading of the

concept through his discussions in the History of Sexuality can

denote that this abstraction was used in reference to repressive

institutions – the Victorian era in general and the Church for

example10. Let us establish “morality” therefore as a

7O’Leary, Timothy. "Introduction." In Foucault: The Art of Ethics (New

York: Continuum, 2002), 1-3.

8Gutting, Gary. "Michel Foucault (Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/foucault/ (accessed October 3,

2011).

9 Foucault, Michel. "Nietzsche, Genealogy and History." In Language,

Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Interviews and Essays

(Ithaca: Cornell: University Press, 1977) 139-164.

10 Foucault, Michel. "The Repressive Hypothesis." In The History of

Page 6: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

confinement of actions based on conservative dictation of

institutions (e.g. society as a whole, established decorum in

schools, teachings of the Church). This paper will therefore

re-examine “morality” as a socially constructed set of actions

performed by docile bodies shaped by social institutions

instigated by a multiplicity of power relations. This idea will

establish a contradiction by Foucault, arguing that morals are

indeed instituted by “inevitable trends” that are constructed by

a multiplicity of power11. This multiplicity of power creates

experiences of dissatisfaction particularly because its

heterogeneity lacks organization.

Just as Foucault argues that genealogy should explore

instances in absence or remain unrealized12, it is easy to impose

that the lack of response from dictated action constitutes to

the affirmation of the body of power that channel out

impositions. By virtue of rebellion against imposed rules, those

rules are reaffirmed. In the case of morality, by virtue of the

fact that we implore the lack of it or the degradation of it

rather, we also establish that morality is instituted and that

the rebellion happens in reference to it. To put it quite

simply, the fact that secularization is established and that

morality is misplaced due to the lack of religious restrictions,

suggest that this is done in reference to the fact that religion

is still a statist function that is instilled as the very

foundation of society.

Sexuality(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),17-29.

11Gutting, Gary. "Michel Foucault (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

12Foucault, Nietzsche, Genealogy and History, 140.

Page 7: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

While morality has been established in the bounds of

religious teachings with the Church as its institution, it may

be speculated that its existence in society is rooted even

deeper. Morality has existed and will exist even beyond

religion. The Church or religion in general is just one power

that dominates the instigation of morality. There are other

actors that constitute it. We can illustrate this idea with

Hobbes and Locke’s idea of self-preservation. The very

fundamentals of morality are egalitarian13 but its formation as a

whole is selfishly made in order to protect oneself from

another. Morality therefore is institutionalized by a

multiplicity of power from people who follow and normalize it.

Perhaps the most inquisitive angle in the discussion of

morality would be the fact that it is always associated to

sexuality. In fact, the degradation of “morality” is not so

much on the idea of people turning “bad” or becoming less

subservient to etiquette and general interactive behavior, but

more of the fact that sex is not as repressed as it used to be.

Nevertheless, Foucault’s assertion that sex is no doubt still

“censored” (a century after the Victorian era)14 still holds

true. This censorship however, just as he later concludes, is

the very reason why sex is multiplied and proliferated. It is

just interesting to see however, that contrary to the conditions

Foucault wrote the history of sexuality, within these bounds,

sexuality is slowly re-aligning itself to fit the “general and

13Foucault, Michel. "Prison." In Discipline and Punish: Complete and

Austere Institutions 232-233. 14Foucault, "We Other Victorians." In The History of Sexuality,3.

Page 8: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

intensive work imperative”15 – in fact, perhaps in the advent of

capitalism, society is beginning to adjust to it.

While the previously mentioned definition of morality in

relation to sexual nuances is attune to the rest of this paper,

a gap superstitiously exists between Foucault and Nietzsche with

respect to the fact that Nietzsche’s morality is broader, more

generalized and not the least bit ‘sexualized’. As for

Foucault, his assessment of morality does not religiously follow

Nietzsche’s assertion of its death but argues that it goes

beyond the Church. In the History of Sexuality Volume Two, he

concludes that modes of power instituting morality existed even

before Christianity (and all other religions bound by laws of

moral values) emerged.16 In fact, Foucault views these power

dynamics as an inherent social cause for the better, such that

society itself id the architecture of its own “aesthetics of

existence”.17

II. Foucault: A Genealogy of Institutional Power Dynamics of

Morality

While Foucault’s earlier work, namely Discipline and Punish

and the History of Sexuality Volume 1, focus on discourses on

power and knowledge, there is also a vast discussion on

subjectivity and truth. His earlier work illustrates the effect

of austere institutions, rules and norms that in a way, navigate

the course of human action and interaction.

15Foucault, "We Other Victorians." In The History of Sexuality, 6.

16 Foucault, Michel. "Conclusion." In The Use of Pleasure(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),249-254.

17 Ibid

Page 9: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

Discipline and Punish goes beyond the discussion of the

prison and dissects society as a whole. Within this work we

could find parallelisms establishing certain establishments like

the schools and hospitals as disciplinary institutions that

enforce certain rules, certain measures of conduct, and forms of

hierarchal organization that proliferate the creation of a

particular subject18. This subdued imposition of particular

characteristics is even more apparent in his discussion of the

military, or the training of soldiers to be exact. Foucault

introduces the idea of docile bodies which clearly maps out the

idea of the creation of a subject by means of an institutional

force that guides it toward particular behaviors.19

The notion of subjectivity and the idea of a person’s

dedication to the said institutional codes are put into question

upon analyzing the concept of panopticism20 which Foucault used

in describing an efficient prison system. In this arrangement,

the prisoners are well aware that they are being watched but are

not certain with regard to the course of time when they are put

under surveillance. The uncertainty forces them to assume a

permanent act wherein they behave accordingly at all times. The

problem with this arrangement, as opposed to other institutions

is the fact that the subject under surveillance is not fully

subjected in a certain behavior but is forced, out of fear

perhaps, to maintain a specific behavior. Of course, the same

18

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (New

York: Pantheon Books, 1977). 19Foucault, Michel. "Docile Bodies." In Discipline and Punish: the

Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977) 135-162. 20

Foucault, Michel. "Panopticism." In Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977) 231-293.

Page 10: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

analysis can be extended to some degree in lighter and more

subdued forms of disciplinary institutions. A simple example of

this is society. Everyone is put under the surveillance of

everyone else such that one is forced, in a way, to maintain a

public appearance safe from criticism of others. The beauty of

this system however is the adaptability one can perform within

it, such that it later follows the customs of the norm out of

one’s own initiative such that one no longer consciously thinks

of the possibility of criticism but performs it out of habit.

Let’s say for example, the notion of dressing up when one leaves

the house. If you think about it, a rational explanation as to

why a person might prefer to wear tight jeans over a comfortable

pair of sweats is because one fears scrutiny. But at the same

time, it’s easy to say, in a matter-of-fact tone: why wouldn’t

you prefer wearing jeans over sweats? An interactive imposition

as mundane as people’s clothing is then transformed into a

natural habit. Put quite simply, Foucault’s discussion

illustrates the power discourse in institutionalizing certain

codes and normalized conditions which, in the context of most

disciplinary systems, persist under the impunity of actors

subjected within it. His later works, namely the volumes on the

History of Sexuality extends this particular distinction of

power relations in so far as it is limited. Its limit lies in

the fact that despite a relatively effective institution of

power, there are still forces that form deviations.

The History of Sexuality Vol. 1 illustrates the

production of people’s notions of sexuality and moreover, it

puts forward an investigative look upon the intertwining of

Page 11: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

morality within this realm of human interaction. What must be

further questioned however is the effectiveness of these

disciplinary devices (perhaps in the forms of norms or concrete

laws) in instituting a particular behavior. An example of this

is the evidence Foucault presents of an underground society of

sorts, which he termed as “The Other Victorians” – a

counterculture of sexual promiscuity that counteracts the

repressive nature of that era21. With all the bounds of the

norms and the impositions of church teachings, how can such a

culture develop? Or if society was treated as a human subject,

within a premised human individuality, is it safe to say that

the propensity for sexual acts are intrinsic and are simply not

repressed effectively? This genealogical investigation was

later extended by Foucault’s second volume, The Use of Pleasure,

which better examines the notion of subjectivity. He examines

precisely how people see themselves as subjects of sexuality,

and as subjects of desire. In this case, if such is placed as a

dogma, what place can morality have but an imposition? This is

precisely the philosophy that can be seen extended within

Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra – the struggle for man to go

beyond himself. “Himself” being a creation of societal “truths”

such as status or physicality bound by social scrutiny or

habitual beliefs (or impositions that have turned into beliefs

through religion). What if the notion of the self is realized

to be outside of what society imposes? Would a person realize

21 Foucault, Michel. "We Other Victorians." In The History of

Sexuality(New York: Pantheon Books, 1978-1986),3-13.

Page 12: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

it as their true self or would it become self-scrutiny as

impiety?

III. Nietzsche: Of Moral Conscience - Transcending to Self-

consciousness, Descending to Self-religion

In understanding the deployment of power relations freed

from institutionalized bounds, it is most helpful to look into

Nietzsche’s analysis on the death of a God22 and ‘godlessness’23

relative to the conception of the ϋbermensch or the superman.

Nietzsche’s mention of a ‘God’ is not necessarily a metaphysical

power but more of the symbol a divine being represents – an

overseer of all things who is feared by its worshippers. This

is the power the idea of a ‘God’ or any other celestial being

entails. To put in more empirical terms, Catholics for instance

fear the idea of judgment and hell – these being negative

incentives towards following dictated moralities. Similarly,

Hindus fear ‘karma’ and Daoists discipline themselves to achieve

the balance of ‘yin and yang’. In sum, my basic assessment is

that firstly, morality is instilled in people through the use of

fears. Second, these threats are no longer feared such that

notions of morality are rationalized and discerned by virtue of

either the influence of a growing secular institution of power

or judged through individual choices.

Now the discourse maintained by Nietzsche, at least at the

best of my understanding, is essentially maintaining a higher

22

Friedrich Nietzsche. “Prologue.” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans.

R.J. Hollingdale (England: Penguin Books, 1969), 41 23

Friedrich Nietzsche. “Of the Virtue that Makes Small.” in Thus Spoke

Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (England: Penguin Books, 1969),

190

Page 13: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

level of understanding within the genealogy of morality such

that one goes beyond institutionalized standards of morality.

Conversely, the ‘superman’ embodies one that emerges out of

secularism, one that in my perspective ultimately creates for

himself and internalizes within himself codes of morality. In

other words, while one frees himself from artificial codes of

morality, one proceeds to a form of secular thinking which to me

is more of a rebellion, or a questioning of institutionalized

values. Achieving the consciousness like that of a ‘superman’

however, goes beyond simply detaching itself through secularism.

In fact, one descends back to his primitive, naked self – one

that is created within a new form of enlightenment that not only

create his own standards of morality based on reason but an

internal philosophy of the self, out of one’s natural conscience

(if such exists).

While my assertions above are clearly the result of my own

interpretation, I ask that it be read with a heavier spirit of

inquiry and open-mindedness especially since the passages that

would follow are made specifically to prove it – with the use of

the text as a primary source of contemplation of course. The

emergence of a ‘superman’ must be realized within the context of

a transition that perpetuates as a form of growth rather than

mere change. Better phrased, as you may have already guessed,

I’m speaking of Nietzsche’s parable on the Three Metamorphoses.

A model of such a transition to the “superman” can be realized

by means of re-conceptualizing the idea of a camel, a lion and a

child in reference to a transition from religion, secularism and

‘going beyond oneself’ or attaining the consciousness of the

Page 14: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

“superman”. The camel was described as having to carry a lump

in his back, or a burden, if you will. Similarly, for people

who have begun questioning the codes of morals they’re subjected

in, carry a form of lump characterized by a conflict between

rationality and what has been taught to be right, or what has

been taught to be a must. Or better characterized, it may be an

internal conflict between what is taught to be right and what

one perceives as right.

The lion embodies one who seeks to overpower an enemy. Put

in the same context as what was earlier described, one develops

a spirit of antagonism, a form of rebellion such that one simply

disavows all forms of religion and focus simply on the

rationalities of things. At this point in time, one is not able

or has yet to encounter the necessity to create one’s own

values, as the lion was described by Nietzsche24. But it is also

more than that, becoming the lion is a bridge towards a greater

understanding. Nietzsche describes the lion as one that is open

to ‘new creation’25, one that is perhaps more liberal in thought

and open to non-conventional forms of thinking.

The child embodies one who has truly gone beyond himself,

one who has recreated himself through the creation of new values

such that he only “wills his own will” and exists in “his own

world”26. Furthermore, a child in the ripest young age is free

of all influence, free of institutional subjection (at least

24

Nietzsche. “Of the Three Metamorphoses.” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra,

trans. R.J. Hollingdale, 54 25

Nietzsche. “Of the Three Metamorphoses.” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra,

trans. R.J. Hollingdale, 54 26

Ibid.

Page 15: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

until they’re parents and other elders start shaping him) and

does what one feels like, moves the way he ought to move. A

child at a young age is, unlike what most perceive are able-

minded. Though bouts of rationality may be questioned with

regard to experience, they are more capable of absorbing

knowledge. Freeing oneself from all impositions of knowledge

and moralities frees one from unnecessary factualties and

enables him to ask bigger questions that cannot be easily

answered (like a child similarly does), questions that are

beyond the rationalities of most people, of the rest of the

world.

We must however go back to the context by which Nietzsche

argues and why the image of the “superman” was created.

Nietzsche, through Zarathustra asserts that a/the “God is dead”

and in all aspects it calls only for the idea that morality has

lost all essence to exist since a higher being of authority can

no longer suppress personal whims.27 This does not change the

fact however, that society has and always will, impose certain

standards of morality. Does Nietzsche therefore really assert

that morality is dead or is he simply appeasing towards the idea

that it has drastically changed or thinned down through the

ages? That point is probably more Foucauldian. As for

Nietzsche, he talks of the God of Christians in a sense that

laws that govern moralities no longer exist as objective laws.

Morality has been subjected to opinions, exceptions and

recapitulations within the Church. If they are not absolute, is

there really any bit of incentive or is there enough viable

reason for it to be followed? With men free of religious

27 Ibid 22

Page 16: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

dictations, what becomes of him then? What would constitute him

as a man if he holds no virtues? Is going beyond oneself

precisely the opposite of a liberalization from religious

dictates and more of a self-internalized, self-imposed religion

such that one also regulates one’s values based on conscience or

deprives oneself of pleasures (so as to go beyond oneself)?

The lack of faith in a form of divinity urges one to create

boundaries for oneself. Embodying the superman requires a lot of

sacrifice such that one is placed at the mercy of social

scrutiny but moreover, at the watchful eyes of oneself – pushing

one to consistent bouts of internal conflicts, up until one

reconciles with all these self dictations and be elevated to a

realm where there is little to clamor for. It is the type of

enlightenment that puts one at peace with the self. The only

problem with Nietzsche’s image of this ϋbermensch however is his

lack of discernible characteristics. True, glimpses of the type

of virtue he entails is evident in Zarathusra’s parables but of

the man that embodies this path of spirit, what metaphysical

image does he embody such that people who have not reached this

intellectual and moral prowess can ever fully conceptualize him?

Going back to Foucault, one can proceed to argue that

transition within time means transition in moralities. We have

to remember that while moralities are dictations of society, in

essence it is also created by society. If moralities are simply

a reflection of society on itself, can one truly assert that he

is bound by it? Is a collective notion of people as a society a

violent power relation then? Indeed morality has lost its

essence in an objective sense, but it still remains to be a

necessary tool for induction. Moreover, it is a necessary

Page 17: Philosophy Paper - Foucault & Nietzsche

vehicle in life such that it more or less directs and takes one

to specific paths of fate. This brings us back to the

beginning, to the question that perhaps Foucault and Nietzche

have instilled in us all. How is one to live? One may discern

between two: the path of oneself or the path with others, a

beautiful, unchartered choice.