Sorry, it wasn't me, but give me time and I am sure I will unload. from
what I have seen, this is a very good group, although I do not feel people
ask questions with the motive of having someone do their papers for them.
People ask question because (1) they do not understand the work or (2) they
want to learn different positions regarding the works. Not everybody is
right nor wrong in this aspect. From what I have read of Foucault, which is
not a whole lot is that at times what he says is so clear it slaps you in
the face, and other times it seems a little convoluted. So people like me
turn to forums such as this for help.
Thanks,
Eric Angel
Eric,
>
> Thanks for your careful response. You make some good points and I think
> you know your Foucault. You are right that we likely agree on much. I
> would only take issue with your (general) points concerning
> subjectivity.
>
> I understand F as implying something *precisely* about "us" and "our"
> subjectivities here in the modern world. You suggest that he wasn't
> really saying anything about contemporary subjectivities (if I read you
> right) in his early/middle works. But I thought that's *exactly* what a
> genealogy was all about, and thus that Discipline and Punish, B of the
> C, H of S, etc, were saying something about what we are because of what
> preceded us. Hmmmm. Didn't Foucault say that genealogies are a "history
> of the present"?
>
> I'm not trying to be smug here -- it's hard to express true interest
> via email, as opposed to sarcasm! -- but what do you (and the rest of
> you out there) think Foucault means by "history of the present"? Have I
> got this all wrong?
>
> Thanks again for your points, Eric. Love to hear more. Hope you are able
> to de-stress soon....
>
> And I'm not grumpy anymore! :)
>
>
> Blaine Rehkopf
> Philosophy
> York University
> CANADA
> --
>