sorry I was at work yestday and now I am at work again,
no it is Hegel who proclaims that history there for the
histor of science is guided by a process of enlightened
progress. well yes and that science claims to be objective,
with it is, in my opinion but 'we' or humans are not 'objective'
we are as nietzsche say in one of his essays on the back of great
tiger being pulled through a forest of dreams.
And I this is the problem with science is claims to be beyond myth,
when it is fact the myth of our age. heiddegger also says that
science does not want to talk about nothing is important , science
has nothing to say about nothing, and that is a problem. In
the sence that science makes certian problems go away in order
to create what faucault calls 'postivism' and I think in ways this
positivism is the demon of socrates described in the birth of tragedy.
how is it that knowledge became good? By excluding the old truths of myth
which held man in the belly of the earth.
I have to get back to work but I will try and write some latter.
jeremiah luna
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Pia Kate wrote:
> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 07:17:01 -0500
> From: Pia Kate <piakate@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: new on foucault
>
> Jeremy Luna wrote:
> >I am ready to discuss biochemistry. I hate science just to
> >start out with,
>
> You hate science or you hate how science is used to ostensibly
> prove matters? Hating science in itself would seem to afford it
> just the kind of objective existence that most of us strive to deny it..*s*..
>
> >for foucault there is progress toward ever higher stages of
> >scientific knowledge.
>
> Please explain - to my mind progress is a highly suspicious
> concept...
>
> Regards,
>
> Pia Staunstrup
>
>