my apologies for any blundering I've made recently I'm not that well read
w/ Foucault in all honesty. anyway trying to get a little Megill discussion
going here's some qoutes from Megill.
"He is like wise more self-critical than Foucault, who, however impressive
he maybe as an unearther of forgotten historical realities, seems
philosophically to be least impressive, the least original, of the four."
he refers to Derrida. the four to Heiddger, Neitzsche, Foucault and Derrida.
next we have
"For what Foucault has articulated is an instrument of systematic suspicion
toward any order whatsoever-an analytical weapon that can be used against
and all 'discursive productions,' even those with which Foucault has for
the moment aligned himself"
thats a pretty well accepted veiw of Foucault, no?
also
"Foucault's utopianism, becuase it is wedded to the activist ideal of
change, in some ways resembles previous utopianisms of a socialist or
anarchistic type."
these qoutes we're plucked pretty much @ random. feel free to add yr own.
"...his accounts of signs and signification remains unclear, even after one
has gone to the considerable effort of learning his somewhat idiosyncratic
terminology and of grasping the architectonics of the book."
"...there is nothing to assure the world that these works of madness
provide any justification for its existence. To put it bluntly: the world
is radically without ground; we know this becuase the mad poets tell us
so."
this in reference to madness of civilzation. the mad peots Megill is
speaking of are Nietzsche, van Gogh, and Artaud.
"Admittedly, Foucault has frequently denied that he is a philosopher. He
has gone so far as to suggest that he has 'never concerned' himself with
the subgect. But we shouldn't take these denials entirely at face value. It
is quite true that he is usually not intrested in working out in detail the
philosophical background or implications of the notions that he advances.
In consequence , to readers looking for this sort of analysis he is often
sorely disapoitning."
then Megill goes on to talk about Foucault's writing on language is in
reality very disapoiting etc.etc.
i won't make any commentary on these qoutes i don't feel I have the
knoweldge
to comment on them in any constructive manner.
my apologies.
"Erasure is: deconstruction, writing, inversion and dis-
placement, paleonymy, the science of old names, the
double science"
-John P. Leavey
w/ Foucault in all honesty. anyway trying to get a little Megill discussion
going here's some qoutes from Megill.
"He is like wise more self-critical than Foucault, who, however impressive
he maybe as an unearther of forgotten historical realities, seems
philosophically to be least impressive, the least original, of the four."
he refers to Derrida. the four to Heiddger, Neitzsche, Foucault and Derrida.
next we have
"For what Foucault has articulated is an instrument of systematic suspicion
toward any order whatsoever-an analytical weapon that can be used against
and all 'discursive productions,' even those with which Foucault has for
the moment aligned himself"
thats a pretty well accepted veiw of Foucault, no?
also
"Foucault's utopianism, becuase it is wedded to the activist ideal of
change, in some ways resembles previous utopianisms of a socialist or
anarchistic type."
these qoutes we're plucked pretty much @ random. feel free to add yr own.
"...his accounts of signs and signification remains unclear, even after one
has gone to the considerable effort of learning his somewhat idiosyncratic
terminology and of grasping the architectonics of the book."
"...there is nothing to assure the world that these works of madness
provide any justification for its existence. To put it bluntly: the world
is radically without ground; we know this becuase the mad poets tell us
so."
this in reference to madness of civilzation. the mad peots Megill is
speaking of are Nietzsche, van Gogh, and Artaud.
"Admittedly, Foucault has frequently denied that he is a philosopher. He
has gone so far as to suggest that he has 'never concerned' himself with
the subgect. But we shouldn't take these denials entirely at face value. It
is quite true that he is usually not intrested in working out in detail the
philosophical background or implications of the notions that he advances.
In consequence , to readers looking for this sort of analysis he is often
sorely disapoitning."
then Megill goes on to talk about Foucault's writing on language is in
reality very disapoiting etc.etc.
i won't make any commentary on these qoutes i don't feel I have the
knoweldge
to comment on them in any constructive manner.
my apologies.
"Erasure is: deconstruction, writing, inversion and dis-
placement, paleonymy, the science of old names, the
double science"
-John P. Leavey