Matthew--
The french version is about eight hundred pages for
starters... the american translation cut vast
portions of the philosophical content of the text out
in order to popularize the text.
Paul
--- Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Paul Bryant wrote:
>
> > Foucault, according to Derrida, falls prey to
> precisely the same
> > fallacy that he accuses psychology of... He
> thinks that he can speak
> > madness or point to it. Foucault, despite
> protestations, seems
> > ultimately to agree with this critique as can be
> seen in the huge
> > transformations his project undergoes in OT, AK,
> and DP... All of
> > which can be seen as attempts to escape the need
> of referring to some
> > sort of authentic phenomenology in order to
> properly critique the
> > human sciences.
>
> The thing is, though, there is nothing (as far as I
> can recall) in M&C
> (maybe it's different in French, I don't know) that
> looks like a
> phenomenology of madness. It's all a history of what
> was done to the mad
> and what was thought about madness. He doesn't say a
> single thing, as far
> as I can tell, about *madness itself*.
>
> Matthew
>
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
The french version is about eight hundred pages for
starters... the american translation cut vast
portions of the philosophical content of the text out
in order to popularize the text.
Paul
--- Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Paul Bryant wrote:
>
> > Foucault, according to Derrida, falls prey to
> precisely the same
> > fallacy that he accuses psychology of... He
> thinks that he can speak
> > madness or point to it. Foucault, despite
> protestations, seems
> > ultimately to agree with this critique as can be
> seen in the huge
> > transformations his project undergoes in OT, AK,
> and DP... All of
> > which can be seen as attempts to escape the need
> of referring to some
> > sort of authentic phenomenology in order to
> properly critique the
> > human sciences.
>
> The thing is, though, there is nothing (as far as I
> can recall) in M&C
> (maybe it's different in French, I don't know) that
> looks like a
> phenomenology of madness. It's all a history of what
> was done to the mad
> and what was thought about madness. He doesn't say a
> single thing, as far
> as I can tell, about *madness itself*.
>
> Matthew
>
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com