In suggesting the _The_Passion_of_Michael_Foucault_ by James Miller I
was offering what I still hold to be a good introduction to the works of
Foucault. His works can be criptic (as we all know) to someone who is
unfamiliar with them. I believe that Miller offers his reader the
conceptual background to extract some meaning from Foucault's works when
they are read in conjunction with the material listed in the very
extensive notations.
I agree that the book may not be a great place to find out who he was, but for quite the opposite reasons than those suggested by Stuart
Chaulk. I found that Miller placed Foucault on a pedistal. It seemed to
me that we were offered a great deal of insight into his exploration of
the margins of society including his rather exciting sexual adventures.
I understood Miller to suggest that because of the genius that was
Foucault, he should not be condemmed for dying of AIDS and possibly and
knowingly continuing his encounters with HIV as some have suggested he
be. He was busy fettering out the fringes of society, he should not be
heald in poor regard for the seemingly unethical conduct as some have
said. These are the kinds of ideas I came away from Miller with. I
did not find the kinds of normative statements that Chaulk found.
Possibly, if I had refrances to some specific textual instances, I could
be enlightend.
------------------
was offering what I still hold to be a good introduction to the works of
Foucault. His works can be criptic (as we all know) to someone who is
unfamiliar with them. I believe that Miller offers his reader the
conceptual background to extract some meaning from Foucault's works when
they are read in conjunction with the material listed in the very
extensive notations.
I agree that the book may not be a great place to find out who he was, but for quite the opposite reasons than those suggested by Stuart
Chaulk. I found that Miller placed Foucault on a pedistal. It seemed to
me that we were offered a great deal of insight into his exploration of
the margins of society including his rather exciting sexual adventures.
I understood Miller to suggest that because of the genius that was
Foucault, he should not be condemmed for dying of AIDS and possibly and
knowingly continuing his encounters with HIV as some have suggested he
be. He was busy fettering out the fringes of society, he should not be
heald in poor regard for the seemingly unethical conduct as some have
said. These are the kinds of ideas I came away from Miller with. I
did not find the kinds of normative statements that Chaulk found.
Possibly, if I had refrances to some specific textual instances, I could
be enlightend.
------------------