RE: Performative contradiction.

In Article <Pine.3.89.9410011556.B20594-0100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
jrv7472@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Or, one could do as Foucault does and change the question: in the intro
> to _The Foucault Reader_, Rabinow discusses how Foucault refused to get
> into the question of what is truth, choosing instead to answer the
> question, How has truth been employed? Whether this is responsible in
> its modesty, or it is cowardly is open to debate, of course.
> John R. Vantine,

Yes, but the final valedictory in Truth and Power seems to put F (at
that moment, at least) in a more direct relation to the question of
truth, and what it is--or how one may think the question, and with
whom: "The political question, to sum up, is not error, illusion,
alienated consciousness or ideology; it is truth itself. Hence the
importance of Nietzsche."

Surely, then, F is not avoiding the question, unless "political"
qualifies the matter significantly. Which would mean that
"politically" F sees the importance of Nietzsche, but refuses to
consider the question in domains of which the "political" is a
component. Is this a confusion on my part?

Partial thread listing: