Asher says:
> 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.
Not at all. It appears, on the contrary, that you've retreated into an
argumentative corner. Now Foucault is screwed either way.
Bryan, I don't think Foucault is trying to scientifically analyze the
world--I think he's simply trying to theorize some contingencies. The world
is not such a bewildering place that we cannot suggest any kind of
historical contingency. Besides, the global/local distinction seems to
vindicate Foucault of the charge that he is "just like Hegel."
~Nate
> 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.
Not at all. It appears, on the contrary, that you've retreated into an
argumentative corner. Now Foucault is screwed either way.
Bryan, I don't think Foucault is trying to scientifically analyze the
world--I think he's simply trying to theorize some contingencies. The world
is not such a bewildering place that we cannot suggest any kind of
historical contingency. Besides, the global/local distinction seems to
vindicate Foucault of the charge that he is "just like Hegel."
~Nate