I think this is spot on. See his interview with Fons Elders and Noam
Chomsky, and Paul Rabinow's intro to the Foucault Reader.
S
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Berber <fdrtikol@xxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 23:12
Subject: Re: Foucaultian Human Nature???
>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
>
>
>
Chomsky, and Paul Rabinow's intro to the Foucault Reader.
S
-----Original Message-----
From: Anita Berber <fdrtikol@xxxxxxxxx>
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 23:12
Subject: Re: Foucaultian Human Nature???
>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
>
>
>