You don't think he's a hermeneuticist? In what sense not?
I've kind of thought of Foucault as a left-wing hermeneuticist. That is, he
sees us "situated" in a context and then talks about intertwined strategies
of domination and resistance. And that's a sort of "internal" reading, isn't
it?
Anyway, it was an interesting comment. Just in case you want to expand, not
necessarily in response to above, please do. Why wouldn't you put him in a
hermeneutic classification?
--John
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx>
A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 9:09 PM
Oggetto: re: commentary is a minstral show
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> If you think that history
>> ought to be a creation myth for our time commentary on the past is
>> fine. If you want to understand not the present but the past,
>> commentary is useless.
>
>And if you want to do the history of the present, not creation myth but
>genealogy, Nietzschean effective history, then commentary is ... ?
>Whatever it is, it isn't a *violation* of the past. Foucault is not an
>antiquarian--nor is he a hermeneuticist.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University,
Toronto---
> "Yes - Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside.
> That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside."
> -----------------------------(Kurt
Vonnegut)-------------------------------
>
>
I've kind of thought of Foucault as a left-wing hermeneuticist. That is, he
sees us "situated" in a context and then talks about intertwined strategies
of domination and resistance. And that's a sort of "internal" reading, isn't
it?
Anyway, it was an interesting comment. Just in case you want to expand, not
necessarily in response to above, please do. Why wouldn't you put him in a
hermeneutic classification?
--John
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx>
A: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Data: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 9:09 PM
Oggetto: re: commentary is a minstral show
>On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>> If you think that history
>> ought to be a creation myth for our time commentary on the past is
>> fine. If you want to understand not the present but the past,
>> commentary is useless.
>
>And if you want to do the history of the present, not creation myth but
>genealogy, Nietzschean effective history, then commentary is ... ?
>Whatever it is, it isn't a *violation* of the past. Foucault is not an
>antiquarian--nor is he a hermeneuticist.
>
>Matthew
>
> ---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University,
Toronto---
> "Yes - Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside.
> That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside."
> -----------------------------(Kurt
Vonnegut)-------------------------------
>
>