On Fri, 31 May 1996 ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I think Greg, that Foucault makes the context quite clear: Foucault is keen
> to distinguish between truth and the thought of truth. The fact that neither
> terms are enveloped in Foucaultian quotation marks speaks volumes. Also we
> had a discussion about this and you failed to reply? Equally, of course,
> I'm not at all sure what you mean by absolute truth. More problematic of
> course is your implicit claim to be in possession of what _Foucualt_ means.
> The sole source of authority. The voice from on high that has the real
> Foucaultian tablets of stone. We could debate the textual evidence vis-a-vis
> this. But I'm not sure you would want to do this, given the textual evidence.
>
> I use the quote simply as a means of portraying the trend in Foucault's
> thought that truth _does exist_ independent of the thought of truth. What is
> it that upsets you so much about this trend in Foucault's thought? Does it
> perhaps imply that the poststructuralist appropriation of Foucualt is not
> supported by textual evidence?
>
> Also given the full quote we can, I think, see Foucault grappling with the
> relation between thought and that which thought is about; Truth. As for it
> being Nietzschean, you are absolutely right. But then again I don't suppose
> your are arguing that Nietzsche, anymore than Foucault, solved truthfully
> that is, the problem of truth. Thus, of course, establishing truth as an
> alterity distinct from the thought of truth.
>
> I think you have quite nicely decided to read Foucault in a particular way,
> a way that is, that elides the difference between the thought of truth and
> truth. What would Foucault say about this? I can only guess of course, but
> probably something like, 'All those who say truth does not exist for me are
> simple minded.' :-)
>
>
You speak of the truth here as if you knew in advance what such a term
might mean. This is a mistake which you will not find in foucault, for
it too is simple minded.
Flannon