>From: Nathan Goralnik <rhizome85@xxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Foucault's Method
>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:36:45 -0700
>
>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
>
My point is that F cannot be taken as a factual account, instead I think
his ideas are best used when considered as useful tools.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Foucault's Method
>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:36:45 -0700
>
>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
>
My point is that F cannot be taken as a factual account, instead I think
his ideas are best used when considered as useful tools.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com