>My suspicion is that you take Foucault to be focusing on this second set
>of questions, and I would agree with you that it was, as you suggest, the
>"consistent theme" throughout his work.
My question to this entire discussion is that if one takes F. as a
postmodernist
,or as someone who has heavily influenced postmodernism,
then to deal in F. in a way that has one central point is
to defeat the point. In interpretation perhaps we need
to take a myraid amount of F.'s viewpoints and discuss
them as they effect each other with in F.'s works and not outside.
for example doesn't F. show that in Madness & Civilation
the care of the insane has been less about actually analyzing
and caring for the insane and more a place for diffrent views
to war? Yet, if this is so don't we need to analyze F. in the
same manner? Has F. man in mind when he writes or is he
trying to win a war by puting his views upon us similar to
the way ppl put their views into use by devising new ways
to "cure" the insane? How does this realte to the view points
already discussed here?
Ah well I can answer that F. was a man who knew a great
deal about history. By refrasing the question of the way we think
from being shaped by experience to history he mutates from simply
being another scholar and into well F.! Now i am not
saying this is the center to F.'s thought. F had many views
in my nterpretation
and many transcend the seemingly egotisitcal analysis
I have put forth here. Let us see how F. correlates and
mutates inside of his own works and not
on the outside... at least for the moment.
I see F. , to be quite honest, as a man who had a fetish about
power. That is by his own defention he leanred nothing
>from power ,but do to his fascnitation he learned
much much much more by tracing the ways
power ,and it's devinats and disciples,
came to our present perception. He never
really grasped what power is but he was
able to hold power by undifferniating
knowledge and power into one.
Well sorry if I ask any already answered questions my general knowledge
of philosophy is remarkable small. also i base my interp of F off
waht seems to be well know percpetion of him as the
historian of the roots of power systems.
thanx for the very intresting discussion.
thank you for reading this
ps i hope that if this reply beings any new discussion then one will be
wise enough
to add on new view points from F. as the disucssion continues.
>of questions, and I would agree with you that it was, as you suggest, the
>"consistent theme" throughout his work.
My question to this entire discussion is that if one takes F. as a
postmodernist
,or as someone who has heavily influenced postmodernism,
then to deal in F. in a way that has one central point is
to defeat the point. In interpretation perhaps we need
to take a myraid amount of F.'s viewpoints and discuss
them as they effect each other with in F.'s works and not outside.
for example doesn't F. show that in Madness & Civilation
the care of the insane has been less about actually analyzing
and caring for the insane and more a place for diffrent views
to war? Yet, if this is so don't we need to analyze F. in the
same manner? Has F. man in mind when he writes or is he
trying to win a war by puting his views upon us similar to
the way ppl put their views into use by devising new ways
to "cure" the insane? How does this realte to the view points
already discussed here?
Ah well I can answer that F. was a man who knew a great
deal about history. By refrasing the question of the way we think
from being shaped by experience to history he mutates from simply
being another scholar and into well F.! Now i am not
saying this is the center to F.'s thought. F had many views
in my nterpretation
and many transcend the seemingly egotisitcal analysis
I have put forth here. Let us see how F. correlates and
mutates inside of his own works and not
on the outside... at least for the moment.
I see F. , to be quite honest, as a man who had a fetish about
power. That is by his own defention he leanred nothing
>from power ,but do to his fascnitation he learned
much much much more by tracing the ways
power ,and it's devinats and disciples,
came to our present perception. He never
really grasped what power is but he was
able to hold power by undifferniating
knowledge and power into one.
Well sorry if I ask any already answered questions my general knowledge
of philosophy is remarkable small. also i base my interp of F off
waht seems to be well know percpetion of him as the
historian of the roots of power systems.
thanx for the very intresting discussion.
thank you for reading this
ps i hope that if this reply beings any new discussion then one will be
wise enough
to add on new view points from F. as the disucssion continues.