RESUMO Neste artigo propomos estabelecer uma comparação entre escritos de Foucault sobre a literatura, notadamente seu livro “Raymond Roussel”, e textos que se consagraram pela fortuna crítica enquanto fundadores da genealogia, especificamente “Nietzsche, a genealogia e a história”. Organizamos essa comparação em torno da repetição do uso de duas figuras: i) a proliferação de máscaras enquanto processo de desidentificação e ii) uma experiência da finitude com viés não fundacional. Sustentamos que a recorrência da multiplicação das máscaras para apagar o rosto, (...) assim como a íntima relação entre linguagem e morte, a qual se desdobra, no artigo sobre Nietzsche, nos termos do sacrifício genealógico do sujeito de conhecimento, é sinal de que Foucault estaria se apropriando de certos elementos do pensamento literário que lhe interessavam na década de 1960. Contudo, essa segunda apropriação ocorre mediante algumas mudanças, notadamente com sua mudança de solo, de uma reflexão voltada para o ser da linguagem na modernidade, para uma genealogia histórica. Finalmente, esboçamos uma terceira e última apropriação do pensamento literário por meio de seus escritos derradeiros. Trata-se de uma atitude-limite que passa por uma ontologia crítica e histórica de nós mesmos. ABSTRACT In this article we intend to establish a comparison between Foucault’s writings on literature, specially his book Raymond Roussel, and other texts which were consecrated by the critical readings as founders of genealogy, specially Nietzsche, genealogy and history. The comparison is organized through the repetition of the use of two figures: the proliferation of masks as a process of disidentification, and a non-foundational experience of finitude. We sustain that the recurrence of the multiplication of masks in order to erase the face, as well as the intimate relation between language and death, which in the article on Nietzsche, results in the genealogical sacrifice of the subject of knowledge, is a sign that Foucault would be appropriating some elements of the literary thought which interested him at the 1960’s decade. However, this second appropriation occurs through certain changes, especially by the displacement from a thought directed to the being of language in modernity, to a historical genealogy. Finally, we describe a third and last appropriation in his late writings. It goes through a limit attitude which is part of an historical and critical ontology of ourselves. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to reconstruct and present in a critical perspective the main methodological devices of John Rawls’ Political Liberalism, which introduces the idea of the overlapped consensus as a way to guarantee, in a political sense, social justice within contemporary democratic societies. Those methodological devices are presented in order to reveal their conceptual failures when contrasted with real world situations and to indicate three elements: a) the psychologism of the theory which reduces the individuals of the (...) comprehensive doctrines to an inhuman procedural forgetting of the historical facticity that defines them and provides them with meaning and identity; b) how unfair the overlapped consensus might be, considering that it is developed without taking into account the doctrines and at the expenses of the historical processes for power and struggles for recognition of such doctrines; iii) the limited reach of the methodological devices when applied to the real world, i.e., that when those devices are faced with the realities of the doctrines they lack practical justification. Because of that, liberalism should be considered as another tradition which struggles with the doctrines. (shrink)