On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Stuart Elden wrote:
> To my mind, one of the most interesting things about this debate is the
> difference between textual and contextual readings. Foucault's reading of
> Descartes, whilst seeking to be accurate to the text, is also aware of the
> context, and the treatment of the 'mad' at the time. Indeed, i think this is
> part of his point - Descartes can help to illuminate the context, and the
> context helps contextualise Descartes.
I think this is right--but it's interesting how it clashes with what
Foucault says about reading people like Heidegger and Thomas Szasz, about
how he "intentionally pirates" ideas from their works, willfully stripping
them of their context (which fits with Foucault's and Deleuze's notion of
"theory as toolkit").
> what I think is most amusing about the Foucault/Derrida exchange is that
> Foucault criticises - in his reply - Derrida's textual reading of the
> Meditations. This was written first in Latin, _then_ translated into French.
> Derrida reads it in the French, and Foucault, quite rightly suggests this
> admits of a different interpretation. Derrida, the writer who forces us to
> look at the smallest of details, fails at the basic level, that of reading
> the original text.
Doesn't Derrida actually criticize the standard French translation and
actually re-translate some passages?
Coincidentally enough, I started reading Derrida's essay just before it
came up on the list. Haven't finished it off yet--but what's bugging me,
so far, is this notion that Foucault is attempting "to speak the silenced
language of madness." I know that Foucault says something in the preface
(but there are at least a couple of prefaces, aren't there?) to that
effect, but if you look at what we have in English, anyway, he isn't doing
anything that looks like that kind of attempt. He's just writing a
history--if not a standard kind of history (though I don't know how it's
so un-standard, either), at least he's writing it in a standard kind of
way, a standard kind of language. It's not an attempt at "writing madly".
Derrida's point appears to be that it's a failed attempt, but I don't
see how it's even an attempt. So--I don't quite get what the issue is
supposed to be.
By the way, does anyone know if anyone anywhere has given any serious
thought to translating the whole French text?
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------
> To my mind, one of the most interesting things about this debate is the
> difference between textual and contextual readings. Foucault's reading of
> Descartes, whilst seeking to be accurate to the text, is also aware of the
> context, and the treatment of the 'mad' at the time. Indeed, i think this is
> part of his point - Descartes can help to illuminate the context, and the
> context helps contextualise Descartes.
I think this is right--but it's interesting how it clashes with what
Foucault says about reading people like Heidegger and Thomas Szasz, about
how he "intentionally pirates" ideas from their works, willfully stripping
them of their context (which fits with Foucault's and Deleuze's notion of
"theory as toolkit").
> what I think is most amusing about the Foucault/Derrida exchange is that
> Foucault criticises - in his reply - Derrida's textual reading of the
> Meditations. This was written first in Latin, _then_ translated into French.
> Derrida reads it in the French, and Foucault, quite rightly suggests this
> admits of a different interpretation. Derrida, the writer who forces us to
> look at the smallest of details, fails at the basic level, that of reading
> the original text.
Doesn't Derrida actually criticize the standard French translation and
actually re-translate some passages?
Coincidentally enough, I started reading Derrida's essay just before it
came up on the list. Haven't finished it off yet--but what's bugging me,
so far, is this notion that Foucault is attempting "to speak the silenced
language of madness." I know that Foucault says something in the preface
(but there are at least a couple of prefaces, aren't there?) to that
effect, but if you look at what we have in English, anyway, he isn't doing
anything that looks like that kind of attempt. He's just writing a
history--if not a standard kind of history (though I don't know how it's
so un-standard, either), at least he's writing it in a standard kind of
way, a standard kind of language. It's not an attempt at "writing madly".
Derrida's point appears to be that it's a failed attempt, but I don't
see how it's even an attempt. So--I don't quite get what the issue is
supposed to be.
By the way, does anyone know if anyone anywhere has given any serious
thought to translating the whole French text?
Matthew
---Matthew A. King---Department of Philosophy---York University, Toronto---
"Whatever we have words for, that we have already got beyond.
In all talk there is a grain of contempt."
--------------------------------(Nietzsche)--------------------------------