I think I will reply to the following using the words of Foucault himself:
>
>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.
>
The main issue I think is with that of contradictions which might occur in
bodies of work. Foucaulk said:
"The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has
been given him (we'll let him off with this slip): to remain unconvinced, to
perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasise
different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, etc. As for the person
answering the questions, he (ditto) too exercises a right that does not go
beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his (ditto) own discourse he
(oh, now this is getting boring, have some of the feminists got a point
here?)is tied to what he (I think the die is cast) said earlier, and by the
acceptance of dialogue he (oh oh!) is tied to the questioning of the other"
(Rabinow, p.381)
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
>
>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.
>
The main issue I think is with that of contradictions which might occur in
bodies of work. Foucaulk said:
"The person asking the questions is merely exercising the right that has
been given him (we'll let him off with this slip): to remain unconvinced, to
perceive a contradiction, to require more information, to emphasise
different postulates, to point out faulty reasoning, etc. As for the person
answering the questions, he (ditto) too exercises a right that does not go
beyond the discussion itself; by the logic of his (ditto) own discourse he
(oh, now this is getting boring, have some of the feminists got a point
here?)is tied to what he (I think the die is cast) said earlier, and by the
acceptance of dialogue he (oh oh!) is tied to the questioning of the other"
(Rabinow, p.381)
"All those who say truth does not exist for me are simple minded" (Foucault)
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------