on 1/30/01 10:00 PM, Bryan C at kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I do want to keep up with the power and the subject debate but I have to
> kick this Idea around.
>
> How can F's method be trusted? He said himself that sciences only
> contain but don't describe the phenomena they seek to explain. How is
> F's method any more reliable than the physician's? It isn't. There are
> an infinite number of variables that go into each geneology. F cannot
> discover, nor take into account each of them. The reality is that
> history is in a state of chaos, there are no rules of the game. The
> rules are human inventions that we use to satisfy our craving to explain
> the void. There is no reason why F is better that Hegel.
>
> Also, how can I know that I percieve reality? All I can know is myself.
> How do I know that anyone recieves this. It could just be my
> imagination or a great deceiver, I could be in the Matrix.
>
> There is no way I can see to come to conclusions from the study of
> history.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
Yes but in order for you to make these arguments you have to concede that
Foucault's depictions of the world are/were accurate. With that, there goes
the entirety of your argument - it either has no basis or must concede that
which it attacks.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> I do want to keep up with the power and the subject debate but I have to
> kick this Idea around.
>
> How can F's method be trusted? He said himself that sciences only
> contain but don't describe the phenomena they seek to explain. How is
> F's method any more reliable than the physician's? It isn't. There are
> an infinite number of variables that go into each geneology. F cannot
> discover, nor take into account each of them. The reality is that
> history is in a state of chaos, there are no rules of the game. The
> rules are human inventions that we use to satisfy our craving to explain
> the void. There is no reason why F is better that Hegel.
>
> Also, how can I know that I percieve reality? All I can know is myself.
> How do I know that anyone recieves this. It could just be my
> imagination or a great deceiver, I could be in the Matrix.
>
> There is no way I can see to come to conclusions from the study of
> history.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
Yes but in order for you to make these arguments you have to concede that
Foucault's depictions of the world are/were accurate. With that, there goes
the entirety of your argument - it either has no basis or must concede that
which it attacks.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004