>The point is that you don't get to choose. It doesn't matter whether you
>like Foucault or not. This isn't a normative matter. No one cares what you
>think, it's only a matter of The Way Things Work(TM).
>
>Personal hangups are all personal irrelevancies. Foucault may not be
>accurate in his descriptions, but it's not something that can be decided in
>terms of the appeal of the theories.
>
>You can pretend that the state works however you like, but if Foucault is
>correct than perhaps such pretending is pretending and nothing more.
>
>Pretend you're autonomous - if you are then that's all well and good but if
>you aren't then your pretending is irrelevant; pretend that you are
>determined, if it works out that you're not, well - oops.
>
>If I shoot you in the head, well I've shot you. Just because you don't
>think
>that it will kill doesn't mean that it won't.
>
But you cannot prove that you've shot me in the head. You cannot prove
that I have a head, or you a gun. Ultimately, all sensory proof
depends upon the Aristotlean principle of "immeadiate apprehension"
which is problematic. I am not saying that we need to reject our
senses, I am merely challenging the idea that any empirical fact can
ever be indeed a fact.
PS does anyone know if I can still mail in if I am not subscribed?
This list is flooding my email.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>like Foucault or not. This isn't a normative matter. No one cares what you
>think, it's only a matter of The Way Things Work(TM).
>
>Personal hangups are all personal irrelevancies. Foucault may not be
>accurate in his descriptions, but it's not something that can be decided in
>terms of the appeal of the theories.
>
>You can pretend that the state works however you like, but if Foucault is
>correct than perhaps such pretending is pretending and nothing more.
>
>Pretend you're autonomous - if you are then that's all well and good but if
>you aren't then your pretending is irrelevant; pretend that you are
>determined, if it works out that you're not, well - oops.
>
>If I shoot you in the head, well I've shot you. Just because you don't
>think
>that it will kill doesn't mean that it won't.
>
But you cannot prove that you've shot me in the head. You cannot prove
that I have a head, or you a gun. Ultimately, all sensory proof
depends upon the Aristotlean principle of "immeadiate apprehension"
which is problematic. I am not saying that we need to reject our
senses, I am merely challenging the idea that any empirical fact can
ever be indeed a fact.
PS does anyone know if I can still mail in if I am not subscribed?
This list is flooding my email.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com