C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Criticising the Kantian conception of autonomy does not necessarily =
imply a defence of "determinism". The opposition free will/ determinism =
is very metaphysical and is exceeded by Foucault's analysis. For =
Foucault the modern subject is not transcendental in the Cartesian =
sense, so it cannot serve as a fixed point from which you can construct =
an ethics. At the same time Foucault is not advocating a determinism. =
Determinism equally requires a transcendental point which structures our =
very existence according to some principle (be it some kind of notion of =
God, Hegel's dialectics or the Marxian oppositions of relations of =
production and productive forces).=20
You mention Kant in your email. I think Kant's Third Critique is a good =
starting point for a Foucaultian ethics. Instead of trying to ground =
judgement and legitimate it according to some fixed and unassailable =
principle, Kant argues we should judge "as if" there was order rather =
than chaos in our world and hence act "as if" there was an effect of our =
action. Kant justifies this movement on the existential terror we feel =
if we consider history to have no purpose.=20
Obviously this is not a clean "way out" of the problem: you could always =
argue that even the analogical movement of the "as if" remains locked in =
a logic of the subject (albeit be it now a very different subject, =
reduced to a capacity for a sentiment of terror).=20
You are right that there can be no "ethical system", if by this term you =
mean a system of rational norms and rules which is universally valid =
across time and space and has some kind of foundation. This does not =
entail that there cannot be other forms of ethical action, localised and =
not attempting to construct a system.
The opposition between "true" and "untrue" when it comes to ideas seems =
to me to be misplaced. Truth depends on a form of validity which =
functions according to a set of rules of verification. Verification in =
the positivist discourse system (which is what I suppose you mean by =
"modernism") requires you to demonstrate the object of your idea. Yet =
the Kantian concept of "Idea" is exactly that which exceeds =
demonstration. If you cannot demonstrate the object of justice, the =
good, the beautiful or what have you, than how can you ever verify the =
truth or reality of the idea itself?
If ideas are neither true nor untrue, but beyond verification, this also =
entails that they are not "worthless". For how could you assign a value =
to an idea if you cannot even assign it a truth value?=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bryan C=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Power and the Subject
(coming off of Asher's last mail)
The problem is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are two
implications:
1. Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are not
constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can never be
an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as a
work of art, I can't change anything.
2. Foucault's, your, my, and every other person's ideas are worthless.
Power is simply creating Foucault and his ideas. Their are =
necessarily
untrue (in the modernist logical sense, not the postmodern sense of
knowlage/power). It is the ultimate in nihilist self destruction. =
Every-
thing I do or don't do is a contradiction. Why should I still breath?
Why shouldn't I?
Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or not this =
is
my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian autonomy. I
think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack the
strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. People's =
tend
to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the will to
commit true intellectual rebellion.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Criticising the Kantian conception of =
autonomy does=20
not necessarily imply a defence of "determinism". The opposition free =
will/=20
determinism is very metaphysical and is exceeded by Foucault's analysis. =
For=20
Foucault the modern subject is not</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> transcendental in the Cartesian sense, so it cannot serve =
as a=20
fixed point from which you can construct an ethics. At the same time =
Foucault is=20
not advocating a determinism. Determinism equally requires a =
transcendental=20
point which structures our very existence according to some principle =
(be it=20
some kind of notion of God, Hegel's dialectics or the Marxian =
oppositions of=20
relations of production and productive forces). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You mention Kant in your email. I think =
Kant's=20
Third Critique is a good starting point for a Foucaultian ethics. =
Instead=20
of trying to ground judgement and legitimate it according to some fixed =
and=20
unassailable principle, Kant argues we should judge "as if" there =
was order=20
rather than chaos in our world and hence act "as if" there was an effect =
of our=20
action. Kant justifies this movement on the existential terror we =
feel if=20
we consider history to have no purpose. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Obviously this is not a clean "way out" =
of the=20
problem: you could always argue that even the analogical movement of the =
"as if"=20
remains locked in a logic of the subject (albeit be it now a very =
different=20
subject, reduced to a capacity for a sentiment of terror). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are right that there can be no =
"ethical=20
system", if by this term you mean a system of rational norms and rules =
which is=20
universally valid across time and space and has some kind=20
of foundation. This does not entail that there cannot be other =
forms of=20
ethical action, localised and not attempting to construct a =
system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The opposition between "true" and =
"untrue" when it=20
comes to ideas seems to me to be misplaced. Truth depends on a form of =
validity=20
which functions according to a set of rules of verification. =
Verification in the=20
positivist discourse system (which is what I suppose you mean by =
"modernism")=20
requires you to demonstrate the object of your idea. Yet the Kantian =
concept of=20
"Idea" is exactly that which exceeds demonstration. If you cannot =
demonstrate=20
the object of justice, the good, the beautiful or what have you, than =
how can=20
you ever verify the truth or reality of the idea itself?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If ideas are neither true nor untrue, =
but beyond=20
verification, this also entails that they are not "worthless". For how =
could you=20
assign a value to an idea if you cannot even assign it a =
truth value?=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dkirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Bryan C</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 29, 2001 =
1:56=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Power and the =
Subject</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>(coming off of Asher's last mail)<BR><BR>The =
problem=20
is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are =
two<BR>implications:<BR><BR>1.=20
Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are=20
not<BR>constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can =
never=20
be<BR>an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as =
a<BR>work of art, I can't change anything.<BR><BR>2. Foucault's, your, =
my, and=20
every other person's ideas are worthless.<BR>Power is simply creating =
Foucault=20
and his ideas. Their are necessarily<BR>untrue (in the modernist =
logical=20
sense, not the postmodern sense of<BR>knowlage/power). It is the =
ultimate in=20
nihilist self destruction. Every-<BR>thing I do or don't do is a=20
contradiction. Why should I still breath?<BR>Why shouldn't=20
I?<BR><BR>Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or =
not this=20
is<BR>my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian =
autonomy.=20
I<BR>think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack=20
the<BR>strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. =
People's=20
tend<BR>to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the =
will=20
to<BR>commit true intellectual=20
=
rebellion.<BR>___________________________________________________________=
______<BR>Get=20
your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR></BLOCKQU=
OTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420--
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Criticising the Kantian conception of autonomy does not necessarily =
imply a defence of "determinism". The opposition free will/ determinism =
is very metaphysical and is exceeded by Foucault's analysis. For =
Foucault the modern subject is not transcendental in the Cartesian =
sense, so it cannot serve as a fixed point from which you can construct =
an ethics. At the same time Foucault is not advocating a determinism. =
Determinism equally requires a transcendental point which structures our =
very existence according to some principle (be it some kind of notion of =
God, Hegel's dialectics or the Marxian oppositions of relations of =
production and productive forces).=20
You mention Kant in your email. I think Kant's Third Critique is a good =
starting point for a Foucaultian ethics. Instead of trying to ground =
judgement and legitimate it according to some fixed and unassailable =
principle, Kant argues we should judge "as if" there was order rather =
than chaos in our world and hence act "as if" there was an effect of our =
action. Kant justifies this movement on the existential terror we feel =
if we consider history to have no purpose.=20
Obviously this is not a clean "way out" of the problem: you could always =
argue that even the analogical movement of the "as if" remains locked in =
a logic of the subject (albeit be it now a very different subject, =
reduced to a capacity for a sentiment of terror).=20
You are right that there can be no "ethical system", if by this term you =
mean a system of rational norms and rules which is universally valid =
across time and space and has some kind of foundation. This does not =
entail that there cannot be other forms of ethical action, localised and =
not attempting to construct a system.
The opposition between "true" and "untrue" when it comes to ideas seems =
to me to be misplaced. Truth depends on a form of validity which =
functions according to a set of rules of verification. Verification in =
the positivist discourse system (which is what I suppose you mean by =
"modernism") requires you to demonstrate the object of your idea. Yet =
the Kantian concept of "Idea" is exactly that which exceeds =
demonstration. If you cannot demonstrate the object of justice, the =
good, the beautiful or what have you, than how can you ever verify the =
truth or reality of the idea itself?
If ideas are neither true nor untrue, but beyond verification, this also =
entails that they are not "worthless". For how could you assign a value =
to an idea if you cannot even assign it a truth value?=20
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Bryan C=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Power and the Subject
(coming off of Asher's last mail)
The problem is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are two
implications:
1. Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are not
constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can never be
an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as a
work of art, I can't change anything.
2. Foucault's, your, my, and every other person's ideas are worthless.
Power is simply creating Foucault and his ideas. Their are =
necessarily
untrue (in the modernist logical sense, not the postmodern sense of
knowlage/power). It is the ultimate in nihilist self destruction. =
Every-
thing I do or don't do is a contradiction. Why should I still breath?
Why shouldn't I?
Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or not this =
is
my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian autonomy. I
think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack the
strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. People's =
tend
to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the will to
commit true intellectual rebellion.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Criticising the Kantian conception of =
autonomy does=20
not necessarily imply a defence of "determinism". The opposition free =
will/=20
determinism is very metaphysical and is exceeded by Foucault's analysis. =
For=20
Foucault the modern subject is not</FONT><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> transcendental in the Cartesian sense, so it cannot serve =
as a=20
fixed point from which you can construct an ethics. At the same time =
Foucault is=20
not advocating a determinism. Determinism equally requires a =
transcendental=20
point which structures our very existence according to some principle =
(be it=20
some kind of notion of God, Hegel's dialectics or the Marxian =
oppositions of=20
relations of production and productive forces). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You mention Kant in your email. I think =
Kant's=20
Third Critique is a good starting point for a Foucaultian ethics. =
Instead=20
of trying to ground judgement and legitimate it according to some fixed =
and=20
unassailable principle, Kant argues we should judge "as if" there =
was order=20
rather than chaos in our world and hence act "as if" there was an effect =
of our=20
action. Kant justifies this movement on the existential terror we =
feel if=20
we consider history to have no purpose. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Obviously this is not a clean "way out" =
of the=20
problem: you could always argue that even the analogical movement of the =
"as if"=20
remains locked in a logic of the subject (albeit be it now a very =
different=20
subject, reduced to a capacity for a sentiment of terror). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You are right that there can be no =
"ethical=20
system", if by this term you mean a system of rational norms and rules =
which is=20
universally valid across time and space and has some kind=20
of foundation. This does not entail that there cannot be other =
forms of=20
ethical action, localised and not attempting to construct a =
system.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>The opposition between "true" and =
"untrue" when it=20
comes to ideas seems to me to be misplaced. Truth depends on a form of =
validity=20
which functions according to a set of rules of verification. =
Verification in the=20
positivist discourse system (which is what I suppose you mean by =
"modernism")=20
requires you to demonstrate the object of your idea. Yet the Kantian =
concept of=20
"Idea" is exactly that which exceeds demonstration. If you cannot =
demonstrate=20
the object of justice, the good, the beautiful or what have you, than =
how can=20
you ever verify the truth or reality of the idea itself?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If ideas are neither true nor untrue, =
but beyond=20
verification, this also entails that they are not "worthless". For how =
could you=20
assign a value to an idea if you cannot even assign it a =
truth value?=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Dkirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx";>Bryan C</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>[email protected]=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 29, 2001 =
1:56=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Power and the =
Subject</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT><FONT=20
face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT><BR></DIV>(coming off of Asher's last mail)<BR><BR>The =
problem=20
is that, if you aknowlage determinism there are =
two<BR>implications:<BR><BR>1.=20
Any ethical system is rendered null and void. If "...you are=20
not<BR>constructing yourself, but being constructed..." there can =
never=20
be<BR>an ought, only an is. I either will or will not create myself as =
a<BR>work of art, I can't change anything.<BR><BR>2. Foucault's, your, =
my, and=20
every other person's ideas are worthless.<BR>Power is simply creating =
Foucault=20
and his ideas. Their are necessarily<BR>untrue (in the modernist =
logical=20
sense, not the postmodern sense of<BR>knowlage/power). It is the =
ultimate in=20
nihilist self destruction. Every-<BR>thing I do or don't do is a=20
contradiction. Why should I still breath?<BR>Why shouldn't=20
I?<BR><BR>Ultimately I think (I'm not sure if this is what F. said or =
not this=20
is<BR>my own thought on the matter) that there has to be Kantian =
autonomy.=20
I<BR>think that F. ideas are also generally true because men lack=20
the<BR>strength of will to reject norms and conventional belief. =
People's=20
tend<BR>to be determined by society because they are weak and lack the =
will=20
to<BR>commit true intellectual=20
=
rebellion.<BR>___________________________________________________________=
______<BR>Get=20
your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A=20
=
href=3D"http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A><BR></BLOCKQU=
OTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C089A1.6525F420--