If you look right around p. 340 of *OT* (English trans.) F says that the
problem for the modern subject is that its identity is separated from itself
by a distance which is both interior to it but also constitutes it.
In other words, there are all sorts of new theories emerging in the modern
era about what makes up 'man' and quite a few of these indicate that this
'man' is not a self-sufficient, self-transparent entity, completely present
to itself. Rather it is made up by all sorts of forces -- social, genetic,
psychological -- that man did not create and is not aware of. All sorts of
activities are going on behind the back of man, who previously rather prided
himself on being the one creature in the animal world with a reflexive
consciousness.
An example F provides right around 340-341 is anthropology: Levi-Strauss and
others were producing some compelling theories about the overarching
structures that dictated, as it were, certain cultural forms without ever
being present to consciousness to practitioners of the culture, or even its
intellectuals. This kind of work is 'analytical' but what it analyzes is our
own finitude, tracing out the black holes of knowledge. Earlier in the text
F calls this the 'ontology of the unthought' (325-326). As he puts it (here
I paraphrase): "Man is unable to describe himself as a configuration in the
episteme without at same time discovering an element of darkness, an
unthought which it contains entirely, yet in which it is also caught."
Simple example: the Oedipal Complex.
But you can think of this in Nietzschean terms too. When Nietzsche does a
genealogy of Christianity in *Genealogy of Morals*, what else is he doing
but pointing to the unacknowledged origins of the 'slave revolt in morals'?
There were forces at work 'behind the scenes' crafting the religion of
love -- revenge, envy, depression, hatred, and shame, for example.
In general, wouldn't we want to say, it's been considered for a while in
academic circles the acme of wit and insight to be able to point to some
motive that is unworthy, unrecognized, or the grand prize, both.
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: tennis <praxiszine@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:49 PM
Subject: analytic of finitude
> I am relatively new to this list and to Foucault. I
> am having trouble with Foucault's idea of the analytic
> of finitude. Could someone help me out with this
> concept?
>
> Thanks
>
> Travis Ennis
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
>
problem for the modern subject is that its identity is separated from itself
by a distance which is both interior to it but also constitutes it.
In other words, there are all sorts of new theories emerging in the modern
era about what makes up 'man' and quite a few of these indicate that this
'man' is not a self-sufficient, self-transparent entity, completely present
to itself. Rather it is made up by all sorts of forces -- social, genetic,
psychological -- that man did not create and is not aware of. All sorts of
activities are going on behind the back of man, who previously rather prided
himself on being the one creature in the animal world with a reflexive
consciousness.
An example F provides right around 340-341 is anthropology: Levi-Strauss and
others were producing some compelling theories about the overarching
structures that dictated, as it were, certain cultural forms without ever
being present to consciousness to practitioners of the culture, or even its
intellectuals. This kind of work is 'analytical' but what it analyzes is our
own finitude, tracing out the black holes of knowledge. Earlier in the text
F calls this the 'ontology of the unthought' (325-326). As he puts it (here
I paraphrase): "Man is unable to describe himself as a configuration in the
episteme without at same time discovering an element of darkness, an
unthought which it contains entirely, yet in which it is also caught."
Simple example: the Oedipal Complex.
But you can think of this in Nietzschean terms too. When Nietzsche does a
genealogy of Christianity in *Genealogy of Morals*, what else is he doing
but pointing to the unacknowledged origins of the 'slave revolt in morals'?
There were forces at work 'behind the scenes' crafting the religion of
love -- revenge, envy, depression, hatred, and shame, for example.
In general, wouldn't we want to say, it's been considered for a while in
academic circles the acme of wit and insight to be able to point to some
motive that is unworthy, unrecognized, or the grand prize, both.
-- John
----- Original Message -----
From: tennis <praxiszine@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:49 PM
Subject: analytic of finitude
> I am relatively new to this list and to Foucault. I
> am having trouble with Foucault's idea of the analytic
> of finitude. Could someone help me out with this
> concept?
>
> Thanks
>
> Travis Ennis
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
>