> > 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.
> >
>
>Eh.. I suppose you could engage solipsism if you like. Foucault bases his
>analysis on the notion that there are small truths - ie things that are
>accurate/inaccurate, even if perhaps not true/false.
>
>So the answer to your objection is: yes, you're right - so what? I think
>that Foucault's notion of immanent kritik grants those structures that
>aren't relevant to his criticism and in fact are part of the proof of his
>theory as legitimate as a first step to anything else.
>
The point, as I said earlier, is that F's criticism is best used as a
useful theory, rather than a system of fact, global or local. I think
Mr. Elden is right. We should all go read Hist-o-sex 1 again.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> > 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.
> >
>
>Eh.. I suppose you could engage solipsism if you like. Foucault bases his
>analysis on the notion that there are small truths - ie things that are
>accurate/inaccurate, even if perhaps not true/false.
>
>So the answer to your objection is: yes, you're right - so what? I think
>that Foucault's notion of immanent kritik grants those structures that
>aren't relevant to his criticism and in fact are part of the proof of his
>theory as legitimate as a first step to anything else.
>
The point, as I said earlier, is that F's criticism is best used as a
useful theory, rather than a system of fact, global or local. I think
Mr. Elden is right. We should all go read Hist-o-sex 1 again.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com