re: authors

> From: ccw94@xxxxxxxxxx (Colin Wight)
> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 10:59:39 +0000
> Subject: Re: Authors
> 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?

are you confusing what foucault wrote with the meaning of what he wrote
after it was published? it seems to me that most people would agree that
foucault wrote, say, _discipline and pushish_. intersubjectively, it is
"fact." however, after he sent D&P off for publication, the text
exists, independently, for public consumption and (re)construction.

> 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.)

btw, i like the point you make about distinguishing between ontology and
epistemology. your claim that "'Being' is not dependent upon 'human
beings' or their understandings of 'being' for its existence" rings true
if you buy into the metaphysics of dasein. from a social constructivist
perspective, "Being" or "being" is WHOLLY dependent on human beings.


Partial thread listing: