Thanks alot again,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So overall, I think the perspectives given so far on this topic (not
> to mention citations) have given me more than enough context with
> which to answer the question of correspondence v. coherence theories
> of truth, if not actually change the assumptions of the question
> entirely. Although I've long recognized Foucault's approach to truth
> as quite different from that usually approved by academic analytic
> philosophy, I think I can provide a detailed response that might be
> able to tackle the elements of the question usually recognized by
> analytic philosophers and their students, such as correspondence, etc.
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That's an interesting way to look at it Clare. For a moment I was
>> struggling to grasp his differentiation between parrhesiatic speech
>> and performative statements, in that I wondered whether parrhesiatic
>> speech might be annexed to the realm of the performative. It did not
>> occur to me to think of this differentiation as a philosophicaly
>> informed contrast between the approach to truth as found in
>> performative statements and the approach found in parrhesiatic speech.
>> I thought it was merely a separation of two ways of speaking.
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, <c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> In relation to Ricky's comments about Fearless Speech
>>> I think also of interest here is Chapter 4 of *The Government of Self and
>>> Others* where Foucault systematically and clearly distinguishes
>>> 'performative statements' from parrhesiastic speech - noting 3 or 4 major
>>> points on which they differ.
>>> See also this remark from the same set of lectures
>>> 'It seems to me that the philosophical choice confronting us today is the
>>> following. We have to opt either for a critical philosophy which appears as
>>> an analytical philosophy of truth in general, or for a critical thought
>>> which takes the form of an ontology of ourselves, of present reality. It is
>>> this latter form of philosophy which from Hegel to the Frankfurt School,
>>> passing through Nietzsche, Max Weber and so on, which has founded a form of
>>> reflection to which, of course, I link myself insofar as I can.'
>>> Michel Foucault, (2010) . *The Government of Self and Others. Lectures
>>> at the Collège de France, 1982- 1983. *Tr. Graham Burchell. Houndmills and
>>> New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.
>>> On 7 April 2011 00:49, ricky <rickydcrano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> >From *Fearless Speech*, MF's lectures at Berkeley in 1983, which I'm
>>>> surprised no one's brought up yet:
>>>> (For the sake of this thread, I'm translating the Greek *parrhesia*, which
>>>> is the topic of these lectures, as truth-telling, a translation that MF
>>>> himself uses more or less throughout the lectures.)
>>>> "Truth-telling is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a
>>>> relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life
>>>> through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people
>>>> through criticism, and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and
>>>> duty. More precisely, truth-telling is a verbal activity in which a speaker
>>>> expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life becuse he
>>>> recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well
>>>> as himself). In truth telling, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses
>>>> frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the
>>>> risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery,
>>>> and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy. That then, quite
>>>> generally, is the positive meaning of the word *parrhesia*..." (19-20)
>>>> As mentioned above, this doesn't really speak the same language as the
>>>> analytics, as truth for Foucault is about so much more than the relation
>>>> between statement and "reality" or between series of statements. Truth can
>>>> never be dissociated from power and subjectivation, relations of forces.
>>>> not sure the analytics have anything to say on this. Comments above on
>>>> Foucault's "historical" or genealogical tack I think make this difference
>>>> very clear.
>>>> Clare O'Farrell
>>> Foucault-L mailing list
>> Chetan Vemuri
>> West Des Moines, IA
>> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the world"
> Chetan Vemuri
> West Des Moines, IA
> "You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the world"
West Des Moines, IA
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the world"