Dear Cameron:
I'm Andrea, I'm going to try to be more specific.
Im interested in the problem of the abandom of the phenomenological horizon,
the horizon of the Dasein, Menschsein and Sinn and the adoption of the
concept of structure from Dumezil. At the University of Buenos Aires, we
consider 4 periods in Foucault's work, the first is the phenomenologic one,
for example the introduction to Binswanger and Maladie mental et
personnalite. The second one is the archeological period, where's Foucault
made his approach to structuralism and at the same time he made his attemp
for a separation from that group. The question is: is archeologie as a
method a response for the hegelian problem of en sui and per sui as
phenomenologie tried to be? The archeologic period depends on a work on
language following Blanchot and Bataille, a work on science and knowledge
following Canguilhem, Koyré, etc and a work on history following Nietzsche.
I want to know if in your opinion you think that archeolgy succeeds in being
an alternative for phenomenology and estructuralism.
Andrea Arouxet <aarouxet@xxxxxxxxxxxx<
-----Mensaje original-----
De: cameron duff <cameron.duff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: Martes 17 de Agosto de 1999 02:20 AM
Asunto: Re:
>At 02:55 16/08/1999 -0300, you wrote:
>> >I'm interesting in discuss the problem of methodology in Foucult's
>>works > especially the abandom of phenomenology and estructuralism, and
>>the >decision of make his own method, callled archeology.
>><<
>
>Hi Mr/Ms Anonymous!
>
>I share your interest in Foucault's methods despite prevailing contestation
>over the appropriateness of imputing a methodology to Foucault's critical
>and historical analyses! Perhaps, however, you might be a little more
>specific in your queries. You've drawn attention to a broad area here and
>I'm sure any number of good secondary texts exist covering such problems;
>Dreyfus and Rabinow's Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics is probably the
>best place to start.
>
>I have my own query vis-a-vis Foucault and methods and that's the extent to
>which genealogy might be understood as a method applicable to different
>historical work. Foucault is very good on describing the attitude or
>critical imperatives one might bring to genealogical inquiry but the
>specific features of such work appear more elusive to me! Perhaps others
>might have some comments/advice?
>
>cheers,
>
>cameron duff
>
>brisbane
>
I'm Andrea, I'm going to try to be more specific.
Im interested in the problem of the abandom of the phenomenological horizon,
the horizon of the Dasein, Menschsein and Sinn and the adoption of the
concept of structure from Dumezil. At the University of Buenos Aires, we
consider 4 periods in Foucault's work, the first is the phenomenologic one,
for example the introduction to Binswanger and Maladie mental et
personnalite. The second one is the archeological period, where's Foucault
made his approach to structuralism and at the same time he made his attemp
for a separation from that group. The question is: is archeologie as a
method a response for the hegelian problem of en sui and per sui as
phenomenologie tried to be? The archeologic period depends on a work on
language following Blanchot and Bataille, a work on science and knowledge
following Canguilhem, Koyré, etc and a work on history following Nietzsche.
I want to know if in your opinion you think that archeolgy succeeds in being
an alternative for phenomenology and estructuralism.
Andrea Arouxet <aarouxet@xxxxxxxxxxxx<
-----Mensaje original-----
De: cameron duff <cameron.duff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Para: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fecha: Martes 17 de Agosto de 1999 02:20 AM
Asunto: Re:
>At 02:55 16/08/1999 -0300, you wrote:
>> >I'm interesting in discuss the problem of methodology in Foucult's
>>works > especially the abandom of phenomenology and estructuralism, and
>>the >decision of make his own method, callled archeology.
>><<
>
>Hi Mr/Ms Anonymous!
>
>I share your interest in Foucault's methods despite prevailing contestation
>over the appropriateness of imputing a methodology to Foucault's critical
>and historical analyses! Perhaps, however, you might be a little more
>specific in your queries. You've drawn attention to a broad area here and
>I'm sure any number of good secondary texts exist covering such problems;
>Dreyfus and Rabinow's Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics is probably the
>best place to start.
>
>I have my own query vis-a-vis Foucault and methods and that's the extent to
>which genealogy might be understood as a method applicable to different
>historical work. Foucault is very good on describing the attitude or
>critical imperatives one might bring to genealogical inquiry but the
>specific features of such work appear more elusive to me! Perhaps others
>might have some comments/advice?
>
>cheers,
>
>cameron duff
>
>brisbane
>