Re: Authors

Colin wrote:

> But this distinction only
> gets its force if we agree that Foucault did indeed say something. Now
> certainly, we can disagree sustantially on how to interpret what he said but
> what we can't disagree about, and still remain consistent, is that on page 3
> of Discipline and Punish Foucault says 'On 2 March 1757'. (at least on the
> version i've got)

Nah. "Foucault says" is just shorthand for saying "such and such is written
in this here body of work". The fact that we use the phrase "Foucault says"
has very little to do with the "what is an author" question.

I am curious: do you approach different kinds of texts differently? Like
do you approach Taoist texts the same way you approach, say, The Principia
Mathematica? Kant? Kafka? Do you examine Kafka for logical
inconsistencies? Do you examine Taoism for logical inconsistencies?
Are you illuminated by reading them?

And if you approach them differently, in a different mindframe, how do you
approach Foucault? I know this is a somewhat tough question, but what
the heck.


Partial thread listing: