An additional note...
Foucault doesn't need to present an actual
phenomenology of madness for Derrida to make his case.
He need only argue that there is an *authentic* or
*true* experience of madness that cannot be spoken
within the history of psychology.
Paul
--- Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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)--------------------------------
>
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Foucault doesn't need to present an actual
phenomenology of madness for Derrida to make his case.
He need only argue that there is an *authentic* or
*true* experience of madness that cannot be spoken
within the history of psychology.
Paul
--- Matthew King <making@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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)--------------------------------
>
>
=====
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com