I'm replying to a response to someone else's posting which is maybe
cheezy. I think I agree with both of you and can explain that the
disagreement is not real. I think that Foucault had a sense of human
nature not as something timeless and immutable but as contingent:Each
episteme creates its own version of human nature definable as what
every sane person living at the time and place ruled by that episteme
believed. For example, in saying that "man" might disappear as he did
at the end of "the order of things", Foucault meant that the "human
nature" studied by the human sciences might vanish along with those
human sciences at the end of the episteme which created them. Then
again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the point at dispute here all
together. If so, in those oft-repeated words of Emily Rotello "never
mind".
---LeoCasey@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> <<Foucault is describing, discovering
> historical practices and then building a notion of human nature upon
that,
> however, Foucault's notion of human nature is quite external and
does not
> really delve into philosophical thinking, but stays or rather emphases
> political thinking and the external effects of politics upon our
being.>>
>
> I would be most interested in seeing an explication of this
position, since,
> in my reading, Foucault does not embrace any concept of human
nature. Unless
> one posits a concept of human nature which is not recognizable as
such, I just
> don't see how you can get to this end. Then again, how do you have a
concept
> of human nature which is external to human beings -- it seems to me
to be a
> contradiction in terms.
>
> Leo Casey
>
==
"I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
cheezy. I think I agree with both of you and can explain that the
disagreement is not real. I think that Foucault had a sense of human
nature not as something timeless and immutable but as contingent:Each
episteme creates its own version of human nature definable as what
every sane person living at the time and place ruled by that episteme
believed. For example, in saying that "man" might disappear as he did
at the end of "the order of things", Foucault meant that the "human
nature" studied by the human sciences might vanish along with those
human sciences at the end of the episteme which created them. Then
again, maybe I'm misunderstanding the point at dispute here all
together. If so, in those oft-repeated words of Emily Rotello "never
mind".
---LeoCasey@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> <<Foucault is describing, discovering
> historical practices and then building a notion of human nature upon
that,
> however, Foucault's notion of human nature is quite external and
does not
> really delve into philosophical thinking, but stays or rather emphases
> political thinking and the external effects of politics upon our
being.>>
>
> I would be most interested in seeing an explication of this
position, since,
> in my reading, Foucault does not embrace any concept of human
nature. Unless
> one posits a concept of human nature which is not recognizable as
such, I just
> don't see how you can get to this end. Then again, how do you have a
concept
> of human nature which is external to human beings -- it seems to me
to be a
> contradiction in terms.
>
> Leo Casey
>
==
"I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com