>Domination is not evil until you apply normative standards - something
>external to Foucault's work. This is the popular misreading that allows
>Habermas/Fraser/et all to accuse Foucault of cryptonormativity.
>
I agree. This is why I used the term "in a sense." Perhaps the time has
come for us to examine transendental standards and their possibility.
The way I see it, since F's philosophy, much like Neitzche's, is based
purely in corporeal reality and cannot, therefore, determine the truth
or falsehood of a priori standards. The fact that they are normative
speaks nothing of their truth or falsehood. And since F never tells us
that we shouldn't operate under norms, he has no indictment of them.
It seems to me, then, that there is no necessary clash between Kant and
Foucault. They could be used in a complimentary duo.
Look forward to your responses,
Bryan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>external to Foucault's work. This is the popular misreading that allows
>Habermas/Fraser/et all to accuse Foucault of cryptonormativity.
>
I agree. This is why I used the term "in a sense." Perhaps the time has
come for us to examine transendental standards and their possibility.
The way I see it, since F's philosophy, much like Neitzche's, is based
purely in corporeal reality and cannot, therefore, determine the truth
or falsehood of a priori standards. The fact that they are normative
speaks nothing of their truth or falsehood. And since F never tells us
that we shouldn't operate under norms, he has no indictment of them.
It seems to me, then, that there is no necessary clash between Kant and
Foucault. They could be used in a complimentary duo.
Look forward to your responses,
Bryan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com