One is not an idealist if one believes in souls or selves in SOME sense.
Souls can be contingent products of the historical process. Cars are
"real" but they cannot be inferred from a basic ontological principle.
What is truly interesting to me is Foucault's inversion of the
neo-Platonic thesis when he affirms the the "soul is the prison of the
body." To affirm the reality of souls is hardly to valorize them.
John Ransom wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, James Parr wrote (in part):
>
> > As for Foucault, I've read less, but
> > as I wrote earlier I'm concerned with his understanding of the "soul."
> > I think he uses the term with a liberal number of grains of salt, and as
> > someone else mentioned the "soul" is a social construction that serves
> > to re-inscribe standards of power, discipline, and knowledge. Not only
> > would Foucault deny the "soul" as a matter of metaphysical reality, but
> > so is any conception or attempt at focusing our subjective realites
> > around terminology such as "person," "self," "individual," or "I." Of
> > course, we operate by a vague sense of these terms, indeed, we seem to
> > have to, but are we really expressing agency, ever, or are we simply
> > determined by a vague social reality and a quite literal
> > imposition/construction of varying episteme, i.e., "ways of knowing"?
>
> But it is striking how much emphasis Foucault puts on the materiality of
> the soul in _Discipline and Punish_. See page 30 of English version of
> _DP_ where F insists that the soul is "no illusion or ideological effect"
> and refers to the "historical reality of the soul." I'm mentioning this
> not to disagree with you but just to see if you or anyone else has further
> comments on this in light of the reference above.
>
> --John Ransom
>
> >
> > Ahh, when I sat down to write this it was going to be a glittering,
> > cohesive work of prose that would stun you all. Alas, this hasn't been
> > the case. Thanks for your time.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > James Parr
> > University of Virginia
> > Department of English
> >
>
> ^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
> < John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
> < Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
> < Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
> < Thursday, 2-3pm >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Souls can be contingent products of the historical process. Cars are
"real" but they cannot be inferred from a basic ontological principle.
What is truly interesting to me is Foucault's inversion of the
neo-Platonic thesis when he affirms the the "soul is the prison of the
body." To affirm the reality of souls is hardly to valorize them.
John Ransom wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 1998, James Parr wrote (in part):
>
> > As for Foucault, I've read less, but
> > as I wrote earlier I'm concerned with his understanding of the "soul."
> > I think he uses the term with a liberal number of grains of salt, and as
> > someone else mentioned the "soul" is a social construction that serves
> > to re-inscribe standards of power, discipline, and knowledge. Not only
> > would Foucault deny the "soul" as a matter of metaphysical reality, but
> > so is any conception or attempt at focusing our subjective realites
> > around terminology such as "person," "self," "individual," or "I." Of
> > course, we operate by a vague sense of these terms, indeed, we seem to
> > have to, but are we really expressing agency, ever, or are we simply
> > determined by a vague social reality and a quite literal
> > imposition/construction of varying episteme, i.e., "ways of knowing"?
>
> But it is striking how much emphasis Foucault puts on the materiality of
> the soul in _Discipline and Punish_. See page 30 of English version of
> _DP_ where F insists that the soul is "no illusion or ideological effect"
> and refers to the "historical reality of the soul." I'm mentioning this
> not to disagree with you but just to see if you or anyone else has further
> comments on this in light of the reference above.
>
> --John Ransom
>
> >
> > Ahh, when I sat down to write this it was going to be a glittering,
> > cohesive work of prose that would stun you all. Alas, this hasn't been
> > the case. Thanks for your time.
> >
> > James
> >
> >
> > James Parr
> > University of Virginia
> > Department of English
> >
>
> ^><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>><><
> < John S. Ransom, Political Science; Denny 107; 245-1716 <
> < Prelaw Adviser; Bologna Coordinator >
> < Office Hours: Monday 11am-Noon, Tuesday, 10-11am, >
> < Thursday, 2-3pm >
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^