I do not understand the logic here. It seems that you are saying the
following: To make an argument against a system of thought you have to first
concede that the system of thought is correct. You then create an either /
or binary of RIGHT / WRONG.
For example, for me to problematise the thought of Stalin i have to concede
that he was right because he was either utterly correct or i must concede
"that which it attacks".
hmmmm
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
following: To make an argument against a system of thought you have to first
concede that the system of thought is correct. You then create an either /
or binary of RIGHT / WRONG.
For example, for me to problematise the thought of Stalin i have to concede
that he was right because he was either utterly correct or i must concede
"that which it attacks".
hmmmm
>
>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
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.