John Ransom wrote:
> I would agree that F is not trying to come up with a general theory of
> truth or power, but he directly contributes to a discussion that cannot
> avoid such issues. When he says things like "truth is no doubt a form of
> power" isn't he trying to dissent from a tradition in Western philosophy
> that sees truth as a potentially critical resource in the battle against
> power? Also, it really does seem to me that Foucault can't be artificially
> cordoned off from this discussion.
I think there are two possible points of disagreement here, first,
whether we agree that there was something novel about Foucault's
approach to truth at all (I suspect we do agree on that), and, second,
whether that novelty is of such a degree that it marks a clear
alternative to, rather than an engagement with, what has preceded it.
The way I read Foucault, he not so much offering another possible
solution to the objectivity and nature of truth debate, as signalling
its irrelevance.
There is another issue which I alluded to in my last post, namely the
strategic significance of such an engagement, in Foucault's work and our
own. Any thoughts?
Best wishes
Murray
--
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> I would agree that F is not trying to come up with a general theory of
> truth or power, but he directly contributes to a discussion that cannot
> avoid such issues. When he says things like "truth is no doubt a form of
> power" isn't he trying to dissent from a tradition in Western philosophy
> that sees truth as a potentially critical resource in the battle against
> power? Also, it really does seem to me that Foucault can't be artificially
> cordoned off from this discussion.
I think there are two possible points of disagreement here, first,
whether we agree that there was something novel about Foucault's
approach to truth at all (I suspect we do agree on that), and, second,
whether that novelty is of such a degree that it marks a clear
alternative to, rather than an engagement with, what has preceded it.
The way I read Foucault, he not so much offering another possible
solution to the objectivity and nature of truth debate, as signalling
its irrelevance.
There is another issue which I alluded to in my last post, namely the
strategic significance of such an engagement, in Foucault's work and our
own. Any thoughts?
Best wishes
Murray
--
=================================
Murray K. Simpson,
Department of Social Work,
Frankland Building,
The University of Dundee,
Dundee DD1 4HN,
United Kingdom.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/SocialWork/mainpage.htm
tel. 01382 344948
fax. 01382 221512
e.mail m.k.simpson@xxxxxxxxxxxx