From: "Kaori Tsurumoto" <tsuru@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 19:26:41 +0900
> well actually i didn't. i said if one were to then... and i certainly
> claim foucault imbued any trans-historical attributes.
no, you didn't claim that. what you did, rather, was to take an interview
of foucault's, replace 'the word human nature and justice with the notion of
agency' (which, incidentally, is a very innovative way to build an argument)
and then say: 'when one speaks of agency, human agency, they are possible
referring to a universally and trans-historical idea.' so it was actually
you who imbued the notion of 'agency' with trans-historical attributes, to
which I gave my case for seeing 'agency' as a historically-specific
emergence of western modernity.
> i would although argue that autonomy and free will 'have no place in
> foucault's home".
well, argue it then. don't make these one-sentence rejoiners.
substantiate, delineate, describe. how would you argue that 'autonomy and
free will 'have no place in foucault's home"? if you ever decide to really
argue for the above statement, you might begin by delineating where
'foucault's home' is, after which attempt it may be that you'll change your
> finally i'd say 'what is enlightenment' should be approached with great
> care. i believe foucault laid may mines within that piece, waiting to trip
> up the unsuspecting or over enthusiastic reader.
ouch. this stings.
if you or anyone else is going to criticize me or anyone else on this
discussion list, then it should be based on what is actually stated. and in
such cases when criticism is waged, it should be done so in such a way that
the content of the criticism can be examined, further criticised and further