on 1/31/01 7:22 AM, Doug Stokes at dstokes14@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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
No I don't believe that is what I said. The point is, rather, that to use
Foucault's critique against Foucault (which is certainly possibly and
probably necessary) you first must concede the legitimacy of the criticism
in some form. To say that Foucault's theories prove Foucault is dangerous
does not disprove the theories, but instead _demonstrate_ their validity.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004
> 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
No I don't believe that is what I said. The point is, rather, that to use
Foucault's critique against Foucault (which is certainly possibly and
probably necessary) you first must concede the legitimacy of the criticism
in some form. To say that Foucault's theories prove Foucault is dangerous
does not disprove the theories, but instead _demonstrate_ their validity.
---
Asher Haig ahaig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dartmouth 2004