Re: undergrad texts

I think that the _Archaeology_ is Foucault's unsuccessful attempt to codify
what he was doing. It is vague on some of the most important
theoretical/methodological issues of his work, e.g. the definition of the
"statement". He says what it is not, but never exactly what it is.

_Discipline and Punish_ and _The Order of Things_ are better. Also, for
undergrads, the elusive but interesting essay "What is Enlightenment?" and
some of the essays contained in the volume _Power/Knowledge_.


At 09:34 AM 1/5/98 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Jan 1998, Clare O'Farrell wrote:
>> Eric Angel mentions that it was Discipline and Punish and The History of
>> Sexuality that first got him interested in Foucault. For me it was two
>> texts - the first 'The Situation of Cuvier in the history of biology'
>> followed by _The Archaeology_ I thought the Archaeology was a wonderful
>> book - it was certainly the one that got me thoroughly hooked on Foucault.
>Speaking of which: a while ago, I read a book (can't remember which;
>maybe Megill, but I don't think so) which claimed that AK must be
>read as a parody of Descartes's _Discourse on Method_: that if you read
>it straight, you just don't get it. Personally, I don't much see the
>connection (and anyway I'm inclined to agree with Rorty that AK is
>Foucault's "least successful book"). Comments?
>"There is but one truly important philosophical problem,
> and that is suicide." (Albert Camus, _The Myth of Sisyphus_)
>Matthew A. King - Department of Philosophy - McMaster University
Dr. Rob Leventhal, President
Blueridge Internet Technologies and Services, Inc.
Voice (804) 977-6022 FAX (804) 977-6096
Corporate Page:
Personal Page:
E-Mail: rsl@xxxxxxxxxxx

"Everywhere we remain unfree and chained to technology, whether
we passionately affirm or deny it. But we are delivered over to it in the
worst way when we regard it as something neutral." --Heidegger

Partial thread listing: