Re: Foucault vs. Chomsky

> To be even more precise, Foucault did speak a little about post-structuralism
> but only in a very narrow way (as a certain situating of structuralism by later
> thinkers) and only as a response to a direct question on the topic. With
> respect to postmodernity--and I think this point is crucial given how easily so
> many commentators on Foucault call him a post-modernist--he said the following:
> "What are we calling postmodernity? I am not up to date."
> All of this is from the "Critical Theory/Intellectual History" interview, which
> is in the Kelly volume (among many others).
> Sam Chambers

--Thankyou very much for all the responses, however I was suprised at
this one the most. I was always under the impression that Foucault was a
post-structuralist and a post-modern, not because he said he was, but
because his works labled him as such. He did not believe in the
categorization of though and ideas into little names and stuff, that is
probably why he never called himself anything. But from the way he
presents his ideas, his very thoughts, his genre is post-modern and
post-structuralist. His work "What is the Englightment" is a very clear
work that classifies him as a post-modern. I might be seperating the
author from the work, but i think thats what Foucault whats....
I could very wrong about this, so i neeed your input...
Omar Nasim
Department of Philosophy

Re: Foucault vs. Chomsky, Samuel A. Chambers
Partial thread listing: