Dan -- thanks for the informative post on Foucault
and Kant. Maybe I should preface and say that I don't
have much competence in philosophy, and am really
posting more to try out some tropes than to present
much of an argument. That said, I can see that
Foucault would certainly not be exempt from the charge
of a transcendental moral or practical philosophy, a
Lebenspraxis, or something like that, if the right
evidence were brought to bear.
I wish I had more time to go into some other details,
notably Husserl -- not that I'd want to have Husserl
replace Kant, or make him into a rerun -- because it
could *well* be that between Husserl and Heidegger,
and
as a result of a certain expansion of the scope/obj.
of phenomenology on the part of Foucault, that this
question of the transcendental
could be, if not resolved, then significantly
displaced, *and* we would have a new set of problems
that could advance the question if not further, then
in light of a slightly different perspective. But,
just since it is sometimes -- barbarously suggested
by Adorno, n'est-ce pas? -- that Husserl is another
epistemologist of the Kantian kind, just another
bourgeois philosopher, I thought it might be useful
to take advantage of their quasi-nearness and try to
displace the questions onto this rich soil.
I'm almost out of time, and what follows is not going
to be profound, but I *do* wonder a bit about how
one proposes to extricate the problem of the trans-
cendental not *just* from the whole Aufklarung period,
and assuming that we've left it, and it's visions of
"reality," as Foucault said somewhere, but, more
crucially from the *SYSTEM* itself of Kant.
I may be having an unthoughtful moment here but does
it make sense to compare two thinkers, one of whose
philosophy would not exist were it not for an
architectonic, for a planning and plotting that, I
think we could say, permeates up to the very heart
each of his concepts -- this is not a bad thing, mind
you, necessarily -- and a thinker such as Foucault
whose work has its beginnings in a different sort of
structure. Wouldn't this amount to something like
positing a transcendental transcendental? Sorry,
that's ve thery jast loke ju dour...thanks and drive
home
safely...
sj.
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
and Kant. Maybe I should preface and say that I don't
have much competence in philosophy, and am really
posting more to try out some tropes than to present
much of an argument. That said, I can see that
Foucault would certainly not be exempt from the charge
of a transcendental moral or practical philosophy, a
Lebenspraxis, or something like that, if the right
evidence were brought to bear.
I wish I had more time to go into some other details,
notably Husserl -- not that I'd want to have Husserl
replace Kant, or make him into a rerun -- because it
could *well* be that between Husserl and Heidegger,
and
as a result of a certain expansion of the scope/obj.
of phenomenology on the part of Foucault, that this
question of the transcendental
could be, if not resolved, then significantly
displaced, *and* we would have a new set of problems
that could advance the question if not further, then
in light of a slightly different perspective. But,
just since it is sometimes -- barbarously suggested
by Adorno, n'est-ce pas? -- that Husserl is another
epistemologist of the Kantian kind, just another
bourgeois philosopher, I thought it might be useful
to take advantage of their quasi-nearness and try to
displace the questions onto this rich soil.
I'm almost out of time, and what follows is not going
to be profound, but I *do* wonder a bit about how
one proposes to extricate the problem of the trans-
cendental not *just* from the whole Aufklarung period,
and assuming that we've left it, and it's visions of
"reality," as Foucault said somewhere, but, more
crucially from the *SYSTEM* itself of Kant.
I may be having an unthoughtful moment here but does
it make sense to compare two thinkers, one of whose
philosophy would not exist were it not for an
architectonic, for a planning and plotting that, I
think we could say, permeates up to the very heart
each of his concepts -- this is not a bad thing, mind
you, necessarily -- and a thinker such as Foucault
whose work has its beginnings in a different sort of
structure. Wouldn't this amount to something like
positing a transcendental transcendental? Sorry,
that's ve thery jast loke ju dour...thanks and drive
home
safely...
sj.
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/