>This discussion re. transgression is dead interesting but someone (Colin
maybe?)
>mentioned 'What is An Author? in passing. Perhaps I missed the posting but
could
>someone repeat or elaborate on what this had to do with the discussion.
The point goes to the heart of the issue of what Foucault is, and what
Foucault "really" meant. If there is no author what lies behind claims such
as, 'Foucault says'. Why quote Foucault, rather than any old Tom, Dick or
Harry, if we begin from a point that presents Foucault, as such, as a
chimera? It also relates to issues of truth. If there really is no such
thing as truth with a capital T, then is it true or not that Foucault wrote
on issues such as A...Z? If there is no truth to this matter, can't we just
'Forget Foucault' and simply make our 'subjectivist madness' (Russell)
explicit? (on truth, BTW, I often find a lot of confusion over ontological
claims and epistemological claims: to claim that there is such a thing as
truth is basically an ontological claim and makes no epistemological points
about how we might come to know it. But our (in)ability to know something
should not lead us to deny its ontological status. 'Being' is not dependent
upon 'human beings' or their understandings of 'being' for its existence.)
By the way. All good questions, even for a Sunday morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
maybe?)
>mentioned 'What is An Author? in passing. Perhaps I missed the posting but
could
>someone repeat or elaborate on what this had to do with the discussion.
The point goes to the heart of the issue of what Foucault is, and what
Foucault "really" meant. If there is no author what lies behind claims such
as, 'Foucault says'. Why quote Foucault, rather than any old Tom, Dick or
Harry, if we begin from a point that presents Foucault, as such, as a
chimera? It also relates to issues of truth. If there really is no such
thing as truth with a capital T, then is it true or not that Foucault wrote
on issues such as A...Z? If there is no truth to this matter, can't we just
'Forget Foucault' and simply make our 'subjectivist madness' (Russell)
explicit? (on truth, BTW, I often find a lot of confusion over ontological
claims and epistemological claims: to claim that there is such a thing as
truth is basically an ontological claim and makes no epistemological points
about how we might come to know it. But our (in)ability to know something
should not lead us to deny its ontological status. 'Being' is not dependent
upon 'human beings' or their understandings of 'being' for its existence.)
By the way. All good questions, even for a Sunday morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------