>
>
> > start thinking of thier efforts as political, rather than as an attempt
> > to expalin sex as a matter of scientific fact. I do acknowledge that if
> > one finds thier physical explanation of sex totally unbeleivable, then
> > thier political projects appear to exist without an adequate foundation in
> > reality. Such is the realm of politics.
>
> I am puzzled. If this is so then such work as Butler & Foucault's is
> polemics, and if it is polemical why do people mistake it for
> scholarship? Are you suggesting that F used the discourse of philosophy
> as a cloak to conceal what was no more than a desire to make political
> space for his own sexuality? You find no insight, no linkage to extant
> practices or experience, only the application of rhetorical force?
>
> William Dolphin
> San Francisco
> dolphin@xxxxxxxx
>
Polemics, or truth, its a matter of perspective isn't it?
What I am suggesting is what makes political philosophy political
is that there is a definite agenda in mind, a deliberate attempt
to describe things in a certain light, and to get others to accept
such a description. For many, there is great insight in Foucault
and Butler, even if such insight is not rooted in absolute scientific, or
historical fact. If it makes one "polemical" to use philosophy as a
deliberate means to activate others politically, regardless of the
so-called "objective" truth of things (if there even is such a thing), then
Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault and many others are "polemical" indeed.
All of them offer a philosophic description of the state of things, each
grounds such a description in different terms, yet none are completely
consistent, or factual, in what they say. Their facticity is a matter
of perspective, and if one accepts such a perspective the philosophy offers
some insight. If one does not, it becomes merely polemical. The linkage
between Foucualt's philosophy and actual practices and conditions is a linkage
that Foucualt, from his perspective, argues is apparent. Those who find
Foucualt insightful and useful, share, to some degree, this perspective. What
gives Foucualt scholarly weight, is that he does a wonderful job of backing up
his view of things. He does so with ample evidence, with originality, with
passion, with linguistic and literary flare, even if such evidence is, in the
final analysis, somewhat contradictory. It's the difference
between trying to be an 'objective' scientist and trying to express a deeply
subjective message in scholarly and original terms. I
think if you are looking for a philosopher to tell you the "truth" of things,
and to do so without contradiction or error, then you indeed have a daunting
task ahead.
>
> > start thinking of thier efforts as political, rather than as an attempt
> > to expalin sex as a matter of scientific fact. I do acknowledge that if
> > one finds thier physical explanation of sex totally unbeleivable, then
> > thier political projects appear to exist without an adequate foundation in
> > reality. Such is the realm of politics.
>
> I am puzzled. If this is so then such work as Butler & Foucault's is
> polemics, and if it is polemical why do people mistake it for
> scholarship? Are you suggesting that F used the discourse of philosophy
> as a cloak to conceal what was no more than a desire to make political
> space for his own sexuality? You find no insight, no linkage to extant
> practices or experience, only the application of rhetorical force?
>
> William Dolphin
> San Francisco
> dolphin@xxxxxxxx
>
Polemics, or truth, its a matter of perspective isn't it?
What I am suggesting is what makes political philosophy political
is that there is a definite agenda in mind, a deliberate attempt
to describe things in a certain light, and to get others to accept
such a description. For many, there is great insight in Foucault
and Butler, even if such insight is not rooted in absolute scientific, or
historical fact. If it makes one "polemical" to use philosophy as a
deliberate means to activate others politically, regardless of the
so-called "objective" truth of things (if there even is such a thing), then
Kant, Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault and many others are "polemical" indeed.
All of them offer a philosophic description of the state of things, each
grounds such a description in different terms, yet none are completely
consistent, or factual, in what they say. Their facticity is a matter
of perspective, and if one accepts such a perspective the philosophy offers
some insight. If one does not, it becomes merely polemical. The linkage
between Foucualt's philosophy and actual practices and conditions is a linkage
that Foucualt, from his perspective, argues is apparent. Those who find
Foucualt insightful and useful, share, to some degree, this perspective. What
gives Foucualt scholarly weight, is that he does a wonderful job of backing up
his view of things. He does so with ample evidence, with originality, with
passion, with linguistic and literary flare, even if such evidence is, in the
final analysis, somewhat contradictory. It's the difference
between trying to be an 'objective' scientist and trying to express a deeply
subjective message in scholarly and original terms. I
think if you are looking for a philosopher to tell you the "truth" of things,
and to do so without contradiction or error, then you indeed have a daunting
task ahead.