In 1978 Michel Foucault went to Iran as a distinguished intellectual but novice political journalist, controversially reporting on the unfolding revolution, undeniably compromising and wounding his reputation in the European intellectual community. Given the revolution’s bloody aftermath and its violent theocratic development, is Foucault’s Iranian expedition simply to be understood as hamartia, a critical error in judgement, with disastrous consequences for his legacy? What exactly did Foucault hope to achieve in Iran in 1978 to 1979, explicitly supporting the cause of the revolting masses and effectively isolating himself from the European intellectual community and the Western liberal tradition? This series of two articles attempts to shed light on these questions by, in the first article, 1) introducing and contextualising the philosophical issues and 2) discussing the relevant texts; then, in the second article, 3) elaborating on three explicit contributions (Janet Afary and Kevin Anderson; Ian Almond; and Danny Postel) that recently have been made on this neglected issue in Foucault scholarship and 4) eventually indicating the possible philosophical signifi cance of Foucault’s peculiar mixture of naïveté and perceptivity – indeed his peculiar hamartia – regarding the events in Iran. Presenting Foucault as a ‘self-conscious Greek in Persia’, the argument in both articles is that Foucault’s ‘present-historical’ writings on the Iran revolution were closely related to his general theoretical writings on the discourses of power and his cynical perspectives on the inherent risks of modernity. Foucault’s journalistic writings on Iran in 1978 to 1979 are therefore to be appreciated as essentially philosophical contributions to his extensive modern-critical oeuvre. Foucault’s perspectives on power, revolt, Otherness, ‘political spirituality’ and his ‘ethics of Self-discomfort’ may prove to be as significant for an understanding of our world today as the author considers them to have been during the events of September 1978 to April 1979, with Tehran’s self-esteem still radiating in the desert skies 30 years later.

Terror, frenzy and orders: The monk as persistent symbol of ardour in philosophyIt is argued that postmodern epistemology, in its 21st century guise, is exhausted, with little to offer post-Baudrillard. In thematic conjunction with the critiques of Fredric Jameson, Christopher Norris and Jürgen Habermas, the author depicts 21st century postmodernism as a "frenzied party", where philosophy's historical and characteristic ardour for truth and analysis has been dissolved in favour of a mockery of some of the most profound ideas of Western civilization, such as truth, beauty and justice. The logical consequences of this frenzied epistemology are described as socially devastating, especially within the context of systematic terror, which is described as the predominant social marker of the first years of the 21st century. The author, in reaction both to terror and "epistemological frenzy", attempts to rehabilitate philosophical ardour and a zeal for truth by linking up with the historical persona of "the monk", arguing that our times demand a more studied, retracted and meditative approach to philosophy. Our dreadful times demand a new ardour and sobriety from philosophers.

Against the backdrop of the introduction and analysis of Foucault's Iran writings in the fi rst of two articles, this second article attempts to contribute to an understanding of Foucault's involvement in the revolution in Iran (1978Iran ( -1979 by 1) employing the concluding suggestions in the fi rst article as premises for 2) an analysis of three explicit contributions (Janet Afary and Kevin Anderson, Ian Almond, and Danny Postel) that have been made recently on this traditionally neglected issue in Foucault scholarship, 3) and, via the notion of an 'ethics of Self-discomfort', arguing for an acknowledgement of the philosophical signifi cance of Foucault's involvement in Iran and his writings from that period.

Inleiding'Voorheen was die ou sodomiet 'n sondaar, nou is die homoseksueel 'n spesie' (Foucault 1978:43). 1 Feitlik elke woord in hierdie beroemde kultuurkritiese stelling van Michel Foucault (1926-1984 in die Foucault-resepsie deeglik gekommentarieer. Tog is die begrip sodomiet tot op datum kwalik ondersoek met inbegrip van die juis komplekse aard en oorspronge daarvan. Normaalweg word aangeneem dat Foucault met die begrip sodomiet bloot 'n elementêre, homo-georiënteerde, manlike, Middeleeuse voorganger van die 19de-eeuse scientia sexualis, homoseksueel in gedagte gehad het. Daardie opvatting word verstewig deur die feit dat Foucault die begrip sodomiet op geen stadium verder ondersoek het nie en dat die gelysde bronne vir sy analise van Middeleeuse seksualiteit, veral met verwysing na die selibaat en konfessionele praktyke, beperk was tot die kanons van die tersaaklike Middeleeuse konsilies (Reims 1049 en daarna).Met bogenoemde verwysing na die 'ou sodomiet' in die eerste volume van sy driedelige seksualiteitsanalise, verwys Foucault dus nie na 'n spesifieke outeur of na 'n bepaalde teks nienet na die kanons self. Daarom is die vraag juis wat die bron van daardie kanons was? Hierdie artikel argumenteer dat Foucault SE pre-Reimsbron die komplekse begrippe sodomie en sodomiet moes wees, soos aangebied deur Petrus Damianus (1007-1072), in sy ondergekommentarieerde, inderdaad obskure teks Liber gomorrhianus (1049). Hierdie artikel dui voorts aan dat Foucault se '19de-eeuse scientia sexualis homoseksueel' in terme van openbaarstelling, 'n heel ander verskynsel 1.In meer vrye Engelse vertaling: 'The sodomite had been a temporary abberation, the homosexual was now a species'.