Hi Sam,
I would have thought that my point could have been taken in context, that is
the context of a discussion of the nature of truth, and in particular, my
particular belief that certain readings of Foucault's notion of truth lead
to logical paradoxes and can't help positing an unthematised ontology. My
statement about readers of Foucault was intended to illicit a claim but that
is not so, and lo and behold such a claim was forthcoming. What is the
status of my claim? Well, I said:
>Just a personal opinion though, and of course it may not be true, but then
>again, what would make it not true?
The question still stands. You are prepared to say that it is not true, that
is, that in reality, as you put it:
I found most of its
>members to be quite diverse in their thinking--with, it seems to me,
>quite large number of list members who took highly critical views of
>Foucault's writings.
I applaud this way of adressing the question, since it raises the very real
possibility that my belief about the memebers of the Foucault list is simply
not true. That is that, there is a difference, a relationship of
non-identity if you like, between my knowledge of the list and the
ontological (call it ontic if you wish) status of the list.
>If you have the expectation that the members of this list are a bunch of
>ignorant, unread, blind "followers" of Foucault, then I wonder why it's
>necessary to enter into a process of communication with all of them.
If I really thought this, which of course, is a vast overextension of what
actually said and neglects that I expressed an opinion that was simply
begging for refutation, then perhaps I might be construed as being
interested in understanding. Disagreement should not preclude communicative
exchange.
I
>think your first point is an excellent one; it makes no sense to
>caricature a realist position and then criticize it. But as a close
>reader of Foucault and a close reader of many other authors in both
>continental AND analytic philosophy, I must protest your own caricature.
Yes I accept this point unreservedly, but of course, to me the question of
whether part of my caricature adequately fits some readers of Foucault is
vital. Just as I accect that there may well be a position that fits the
'vulgar realism' as Steve understands it. My point was that I did indeed
read Steve as being 'vulgar', in the sense of presenting a one-dimensional
view of realism. So in that sense my awful caricature was constructed t
object to the 'vulgar construction of vulgar realism'.
>
>I don't read Foucault's works (or anyone else's for that matter) in order
>to "confirm my own world view"--just the opposite in fact. The
>historical sense that Foucault develops from Nietzsche is what makes it
>possible to render our own worldview contingent; it therefore creates the
>conditions for change--in the way we think, act, write. Whether we want
>to defend or criticize Foucault's positions (and there are more than one
>of them), doesn't his writing at least give us this ability to think
>differently.
Yes, absolutely, in fact it demands it. But I have to admit, and again this
is a personal opinion, that I often get the impression that many readers of
Foucault are not critical readers of Foucault. Now it may be the case that
any writer (i hesitate to use the word philosopher here out of respect for
Foucault's own anguished search to find a label for his work) is susceptible
to this form of reading, but that doesn't negate that fact that we should be
wary of this when it occurs.
Thanks, for your comments, which I found even-handed and consistent, even if
we may disagree on fundamentals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
I would have thought that my point could have been taken in context, that is
the context of a discussion of the nature of truth, and in particular, my
particular belief that certain readings of Foucault's notion of truth lead
to logical paradoxes and can't help positing an unthematised ontology. My
statement about readers of Foucault was intended to illicit a claim but that
is not so, and lo and behold such a claim was forthcoming. What is the
status of my claim? Well, I said:
>Just a personal opinion though, and of course it may not be true, but then
>again, what would make it not true?
The question still stands. You are prepared to say that it is not true, that
is, that in reality, as you put it:
I found most of its
>members to be quite diverse in their thinking--with, it seems to me,
>quite large number of list members who took highly critical views of
>Foucault's writings.
I applaud this way of adressing the question, since it raises the very real
possibility that my belief about the memebers of the Foucault list is simply
not true. That is that, there is a difference, a relationship of
non-identity if you like, between my knowledge of the list and the
ontological (call it ontic if you wish) status of the list.
>If you have the expectation that the members of this list are a bunch of
>ignorant, unread, blind "followers" of Foucault, then I wonder why it's
>necessary to enter into a process of communication with all of them.
If I really thought this, which of course, is a vast overextension of what
actually said and neglects that I expressed an opinion that was simply
begging for refutation, then perhaps I might be construed as being
interested in understanding. Disagreement should not preclude communicative
exchange.
I
>think your first point is an excellent one; it makes no sense to
>caricature a realist position and then criticize it. But as a close
>reader of Foucault and a close reader of many other authors in both
>continental AND analytic philosophy, I must protest your own caricature.
Yes I accept this point unreservedly, but of course, to me the question of
whether part of my caricature adequately fits some readers of Foucault is
vital. Just as I accect that there may well be a position that fits the
'vulgar realism' as Steve understands it. My point was that I did indeed
read Steve as being 'vulgar', in the sense of presenting a one-dimensional
view of realism. So in that sense my awful caricature was constructed t
object to the 'vulgar construction of vulgar realism'.
>
>I don't read Foucault's works (or anyone else's for that matter) in order
>to "confirm my own world view"--just the opposite in fact. The
>historical sense that Foucault develops from Nietzsche is what makes it
>possible to render our own worldview contingent; it therefore creates the
>conditions for change--in the way we think, act, write. Whether we want
>to defend or criticize Foucault's positions (and there are more than one
>of them), doesn't his writing at least give us this ability to think
>differently.
Yes, absolutely, in fact it demands it. But I have to admit, and again this
is a personal opinion, that I often get the impression that many readers of
Foucault are not critical readers of Foucault. Now it may be the case that
any writer (i hesitate to use the word philosopher here out of respect for
Foucault's own anguished search to find a label for his work) is susceptible
to this form of reading, but that doesn't negate that fact that we should be
wary of this when it occurs.
Thanks, for your comments, which I found even-handed and consistent, even if
we may disagree on fundamentals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------