>Yes, I was being somewhat facetious, but then you keep posting basically
>the same point over and over, no matter how many people point out that
>it is irrelevant to Foucault.
And I will continue to keep posting such questions in the face of blanket
dogmatic assertions. How can such issues be irrelevant? This form of
argumentation is little different than the priests injunctions to accept it
on faithy my son, question not the words of the Lord.
Not me thanks Murray.
Clearly F. is not just descriptive, but
>that doesn't make him prescriptive, nor should it.
Again, and yes this is getting tedious, this is simply naive fact/value
positivism.
The point is, if he has altered the shape of that space,
>then he might consider his job done, whether or not this was in the form
>of guidelines or moral injunctions would be irrelevant.
And this is exactly why F is prescriptive. And, of course, the point is (as
has been evident on this issue) F leaves moral deliberation arbitrary, or
possibly even impossible.
Doesn't F.'s
>work essentially consist of changing the limits of the sayable and
>thinkable?
I don't know Murray, you tell me. But I am remined here of the change in
language from "queer" which was once sayable, but now is not really. Still,
"queers" still get bashed, only now we call it "gay" bashing. Some change.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------