On Sun, 20 Oct 1996, Stephen D'Arcy wrote:
> Discussion on this list has to be provoked. There is a simple
> technique. You begin with a controversial claim, like "Foucault is a
> Marxist," or "Foucault is a conservative," or "Foucault is a liberal."
> Then you supply an argument, or a quotation, to justify your claim.
> And then you encourage people who disagree to try to convince you that
> you are mistaken.
Thankyou for your adivice, but you forgot another aspect of
dialoge, agreement. What i am about to do with your next paragraph, i.e.
agree with it.
> Speaking of controversial interpretations of Foucault: I think
> Foucault is so far from being a "post-modernist" that he has much more
> in common with Immanuel Kant than he does with, say, Lyotard or
> Derrida (not that I would admit that Derrida is a postmodernist).
>
> I don't have time to justify this, but perhaps those who have read
> Foucault's "What is Enlightenment?," or, say, Ian Hacking's
> "Self-improvement" (in FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER), can anticipate
> the sort of justification I would give.
>
> I'm really curious: what is it about Foucault that makes him something
> other than a characteristically "modern" thinker?
>
> Steve
I would tend to agree with your asseration, that Foucault is more Kantian
than lyotardean or derridean. I read "What is Englightment", and your
right, Foucault's position seems to me, that of a Kantian postion, in
that he is a strong exponent of aesthetics and progressive change through
art, where, he believes, is the only way to trascend the power/knowledge
schemes, he's soo fond of. That is, instead of being anti-aesthetical, a
post-modern position, he asserts the neccessity of aesthetics, just as
Kant did. Being aesthetical as opposed to Anti-aesthetical, I feel that
Foucault still beliefs in the good ole values of judgement, and therefore
Truth, With MEANING!!! therefore, depth.
Omar Nasim
Department of Philosophy,
University of Manitoba
> Discussion on this list has to be provoked. There is a simple
> technique. You begin with a controversial claim, like "Foucault is a
> Marxist," or "Foucault is a conservative," or "Foucault is a liberal."
> Then you supply an argument, or a quotation, to justify your claim.
> And then you encourage people who disagree to try to convince you that
> you are mistaken.
Thankyou for your adivice, but you forgot another aspect of
dialoge, agreement. What i am about to do with your next paragraph, i.e.
agree with it.
> Speaking of controversial interpretations of Foucault: I think
> Foucault is so far from being a "post-modernist" that he has much more
> in common with Immanuel Kant than he does with, say, Lyotard or
> Derrida (not that I would admit that Derrida is a postmodernist).
>
> I don't have time to justify this, but perhaps those who have read
> Foucault's "What is Enlightenment?," or, say, Ian Hacking's
> "Self-improvement" (in FOUCAULT: A CRITICAL READER), can anticipate
> the sort of justification I would give.
>
> I'm really curious: what is it about Foucault that makes him something
> other than a characteristically "modern" thinker?
>
> Steve
I would tend to agree with your asseration, that Foucault is more Kantian
than lyotardean or derridean. I read "What is Englightment", and your
right, Foucault's position seems to me, that of a Kantian postion, in
that he is a strong exponent of aesthetics and progressive change through
art, where, he believes, is the only way to trascend the power/knowledge
schemes, he's soo fond of. That is, instead of being anti-aesthetical, a
post-modern position, he asserts the neccessity of aesthetics, just as
Kant did. Being aesthetical as opposed to Anti-aesthetical, I feel that
Foucault still beliefs in the good ole values of judgement, and therefore
Truth, With MEANING!!! therefore, depth.
Omar Nasim
Department of Philosophy,
University of Manitoba