I too enjoyed the brawling about truth. I was utterly unclear about
ontology,
epistemology and teleology before and am still in the same state. Is any
one out there kind enough to explain each of them for me? Jennifer O'Brien
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, jon roffe wrote:
> Greetings
> this is my first message to the list, so I hope it got where it was
> meant to go. I'm only getting the digest at the moment too, so this
> might be old ideas by now.
>
> >On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, John Ransom wrote:
>
> >I wonder if anyone else is struck by Foucault's insistence on the
> >*reality* of the soul.
>
> My interpretation of this passage has always been that the 'reality' of
> the soul that Foucault seems so insistent on is certainly quite distinct
> from the traditional ontological sense. It seems to me Foucault is
> saying the soul's reality is constituted due to various technologies of
> power. It is not a given that is interpreted differently as different
> modes of discourse develop. The 'soul' of theologians etc. was a
> product of discursive formations at the time when theological discourse
> was the dominant mode of understanding. Ditto for the sociologists.
>
> This is all to say, I guess, that the 'reality' of the soul is a
> socio-political (in the broad sense) rather than an ontological notion
> for Foucault, as I read it.
>
> Jon
>
> P.S. I really enjoyed the 'brawling' over 'vulgar theories of truth'!
> If I was ever clear on epistemology, ontology and the social
> construction of reality, I'm not any more . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
ontology,
epistemology and teleology before and am still in the same state. Is any
one out there kind enough to explain each of them for me? Jennifer O'Brien
On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, jon roffe wrote:
> Greetings
> this is my first message to the list, so I hope it got where it was
> meant to go. I'm only getting the digest at the moment too, so this
> might be old ideas by now.
>
> >On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, John Ransom wrote:
>
> >I wonder if anyone else is struck by Foucault's insistence on the
> >*reality* of the soul.
>
> My interpretation of this passage has always been that the 'reality' of
> the soul that Foucault seems so insistent on is certainly quite distinct
> from the traditional ontological sense. It seems to me Foucault is
> saying the soul's reality is constituted due to various technologies of
> power. It is not a given that is interpreted differently as different
> modes of discourse develop. The 'soul' of theologians etc. was a
> product of discursive formations at the time when theological discourse
> was the dominant mode of understanding. Ditto for the sociologists.
>
> This is all to say, I guess, that the 'reality' of the soul is a
> socio-political (in the broad sense) rather than an ontological notion
> for Foucault, as I read it.
>
> Jon
>
> P.S. I really enjoyed the 'brawling' over 'vulgar theories of truth'!
> If I was ever clear on epistemology, ontology and the social
> construction of reality, I'm not any more . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>