Foucault is a moral philosopher. His choices of topics are not those of
random historical curiosities and his every inclusion of one detail over
another has a purpose to it. He is not some blind grouper of facts for some
one else to sift. He IS ambiguous in that he does not give clear
theoretical structures, yet his works are thoroughly ethical in nature. He
just disrupts traditional notions of what it means to do ethics, but he the
entire interest of his studies depend on a moral "gotcha" hiding in the
wings. He endeavors to describe our ethical relations and their different
forms, and this can nt be received nor compiled in an ethically neutral way.
Unless, we're going to imagine that Foucault (or any one for that matter)
has elevated himself that far out of practical power/knowledge discourses to
be "simply a historian!"
And Bryan C is right to bring up Kant. Foucault is a philosopher and it is
always valid to check for connections or reactions to Kant when dealing with
a post Kantian philosopher.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Bryan C <kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:34:49 -0700
><< And since F never tells us that we shouldn't operate under norms, he has
>no indictment of them. >>
I've said this again and again. I was trying to find out whether
F said that a trancendental principle was flawed. It now seems
obvious the answer is no.
>Foucault isn't a moral philosopher, Bryan. He's (among other things) a
>historian. He analyzes historically specific operations of power and
>knowledge, and studies the formation of discourses. I'm not sure what
>Foucault "tells us" really matters.
I know this now, this was precisely what I was trying to figure out
for sure. I was trying to figure out if F simply gave us tools and
then left it to us how to use them or if he gave us a way in which
we should use them.
>None of the people on this list are
>sheep, Bryan. I think that Foucault has made us aware of the historical
>contingency and cultural specificity of a variety of discourses, and has
>given us some methodological tools to critique the conditions and effects
>of
>the formation of discourses. A perfect example is Asher's response to the
>assertion that homosexuality is synonymous with some essential sexual
>deviancy.
I agree! This was what I was trying to figure out!
>Please try to be a bit more respectful, a bit more humble, and a bit less
>polemical, Bryan. The members of this list possess an understanding of
>Foucault's thought that is far richer than you or I could ever imagine.
I readily recognize that everyone on the list knows more about
F than me. This is exactly why I am proceeding like I am. If
your dying of thirst in a desert and you come to water, you drink
the water, you don't sit down and worship it.
Respect is just an excuse not to express yourself. If you want
to hide your ideas, go ahead; but I'm here to learn something
and I can't do that if I spend all my time sucking up. If we aren't
here to challenge each other, then its just an intellecual
circle-jerk.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
random historical curiosities and his every inclusion of one detail over
another has a purpose to it. He is not some blind grouper of facts for some
one else to sift. He IS ambiguous in that he does not give clear
theoretical structures, yet his works are thoroughly ethical in nature. He
just disrupts traditional notions of what it means to do ethics, but he the
entire interest of his studies depend on a moral "gotcha" hiding in the
wings. He endeavors to describe our ethical relations and their different
forms, and this can nt be received nor compiled in an ethically neutral way.
Unless, we're going to imagine that Foucault (or any one for that matter)
has elevated himself that far out of practical power/knowledge discourses to
be "simply a historian!"
And Bryan C is right to bring up Kant. Foucault is a philosopher and it is
always valid to check for connections or reactions to Kant when dealing with
a post Kantian philosopher.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Bryan C <kirk728@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Good and Evil
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:34:49 -0700
><< And since F never tells us that we shouldn't operate under norms, he has
>no indictment of them. >>
I've said this again and again. I was trying to find out whether
F said that a trancendental principle was flawed. It now seems
obvious the answer is no.
>Foucault isn't a moral philosopher, Bryan. He's (among other things) a
>historian. He analyzes historically specific operations of power and
>knowledge, and studies the formation of discourses. I'm not sure what
>Foucault "tells us" really matters.
I know this now, this was precisely what I was trying to figure out
for sure. I was trying to figure out if F simply gave us tools and
then left it to us how to use them or if he gave us a way in which
we should use them.
>None of the people on this list are
>sheep, Bryan. I think that Foucault has made us aware of the historical
>contingency and cultural specificity of a variety of discourses, and has
>given us some methodological tools to critique the conditions and effects
>of
>the formation of discourses. A perfect example is Asher's response to the
>assertion that homosexuality is synonymous with some essential sexual
>deviancy.
I agree! This was what I was trying to figure out!
>Please try to be a bit more respectful, a bit more humble, and a bit less
>polemical, Bryan. The members of this list possess an understanding of
>Foucault's thought that is far richer than you or I could ever imagine.
I readily recognize that everyone on the list knows more about
F than me. This is exactly why I am proceeding like I am. If
your dying of thirst in a desert and you come to water, you drink
the water, you don't sit down and worship it.
Respect is just an excuse not to express yourself. If you want
to hide your ideas, go ahead; but I'm here to learn something
and I can't do that if I spend all my time sucking up. If we aren't
here to challenge each other, then its just an intellecual
circle-jerk.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com