C'est un message de format MIME en plusieurs parties.
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There seems to be quite a bit of Kant-bashing going on here, most of it =
based on a misrepresentation of Kant reduced to the categorical =
imperative.=20
For anybody seriously interested in the key problem of passages between =
incomparable discourse systems I could recommend a reading of Kant's =
_Critique of Judgement_. Here Kant deals exactly with the issues we've =
been discussing, namely how to operate a passage between the different =
faculties and thus how to legitimate a moral code. He ends up =
recognising that there can be no absolute basis for a moral code and the =
best he can do is to provide analogies. For those interested, you might =
also want to have a look at Lyotard's reading of the Third Critique (in =
the Kant notes of _Le Differend_ and in more detail in =
_L'enthousiasme_) which I believe is very much compatible with a =
Foucauldian stance.
Yves
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Vunch@xxxxxxx=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and Kant
In a message dated 2/1/01 8:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20
thegreatfandincke@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:=20
We all knew that power systems and knowledge=20
systems affected people's morality. Foucault's radicality is in =
locating=20
ALL morality within power/knowledge. In ways like this, he is=20
significantly=20
transcendental, and therefore, in a broad and not negligible sense, =
a=20
Kantian after all.=20
Foucault is not Kantian because Kant reconstructed how the =
transcentental=20
subject, individuals if you will, reconstructed their knowledge of =
nature. =20
He did not analyze how humans form social groups and societies. The =
object=20
of knowledge for Kant was nature, that is, things which are primarily=20
perceived by the senses knowledge of which is constructed during the=20
developmental lifespan of each individual. Knowledge of society, =
which=20
Foucault reconstructs, is already existing before the individual is =
born and=20
constitutes that individual as he/she grows, something that nature =
does not=20
do. Society is a social force construing what each individual is =
through=20
both the historical background of beliefs and through the current =
network of=20
individual cognitive acts. Society is not nature. To the extent that =
Kantian metaphysics is unable to harbor the difference between natural =
and=20
social epistomology (what constitutes valid knowledge) is the extent =
to which=20
his moral metaphysics runs aground, as in his notion of the =
universality of=20
the categorical imperative. But, for Kant, we should understand that =
he was=20
attempting to free science from the binding limits of religion and so =
dealt=20
primarily with nature as an object, not as an objectivating force. =20
As for Juan's situation, we can easily recognize Juan as a character =
who has=20
been constructed by the prevailing societal ethos of his location and=20
social-historical context. Juan is unable to be reflexive about his =
being=20
constructed and so he believes that he has it figured out. When he =
realizes=20
that he 'had it' figured out, he may be able to understand Foucault's=20
positing of power not in terms of morality, but in terms of local =
practices.=20
For Kant, the law and morality represented the same thing. Today we=20
distinguish ethics from morality as that which pertains to personal =
private=20
matters but we still get embroiled in disputes over right and wrong in =
which=20
the law is often the only limiting factor between two or more =
disparate=20
ethical positions. In those cases where the law is determing =
individuals'=20
ethical consciences, resistance is surely bred, one such form being=20
homosexuality in its many variations. But, the homosexuality does not =
necessarily occur as an ethical position, but instead as a way of =
exerting or=20
expressing power/resistance. I tend to think of power/resistance as a =
metaphor of the antibody-antigen or enzyme-substrate complex.=20
Vunch=20
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There seems to be quite a bit of =
Kant-bashing=20
going on here, most of it based on a misrepresentation of Kant reduced =
to the=20
categorical imperative. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For anybody seriously interested in the =
key problem=20
of passages between incomparable discourse systems I could recommend a =
reading=20
of Kant's _Critique of Judgement_. Here Kant deals exactly with the =
issues we've=20
been discussing, namely how to operate a passage between the different =
faculties=20
and thus how to legitimate a moral code. He ends up recognising =
that there=20
can be no absolute basis for a moral code and the best he can do is to =
provide=20
analogies. </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For those interested, you =
might also=20
want to have a look at Lyotard's reading of the Third Critique (in the =
Kant=20
notes of _Le Differend_ and in more detail in _L'enthousiasme_) =
which I=20
believe is very much compatible with a Foucauldian stance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yves</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DVunch@xxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:Vunch@xxxxxxx";>Vunch@xxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@lists.villag=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 02, 2001 =
4:54=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
Kant</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>In a =
message dated=20
2/1/01 8:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:thegreatfandincke@xxxxxxxxxxx";>thegreatfandincke@hotmail.c=
om</A>=20
writes: <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">We all knew that power systems and knowledge <BR>systems =
affected people's morality. Foucault's radicality is in =
locating=20
<BR>ALL morality within power/knowledge. In ways like this, he =
is=20
<BR>significantly <BR>transcendental, and therefore, in a broad and =
not=20
negligible sense, a <BR>Kantian after all.=20
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Foucault is not Kantian because Kant=20
reconstructed how the transcentental <BR>subject, individuals if you =
will,=20
reconstructed their knowledge of nature. <BR>He did not analyze =
how=20
humans form social groups and societies. The object <BR>of =
knowledge for=20
Kant was nature, that is, things which are primarily <BR>perceived by =
the=20
senses knowledge of which is constructed during the <BR>developmental =
lifespan=20
of each individual. Knowledge of society, which <BR>Foucault=20
reconstructs, is already existing before the individual is born and=20
<BR>constitutes that individual as he/she grows, something that nature =
does=20
not <BR>do. Society is a social force construing what each =
individual is=20
through <BR>both the historical background of beliefs and through the =
current=20
network of <BR>individual cognitive acts. Society is not nature. =
To the extent that <BR>Kantian metaphysics is unable to harbor =
the=20
difference between natural and <BR>social epistomology (what =
constitutes valid=20
knowledge) is the extent to which <BR>his moral metaphysics runs =
aground, as=20
in his notion of the universality of <BR>the categorical imperative.=20
But, for Kant, we should understand that he was <BR>attempting =
to free=20
science from the binding limits of religion and so dealt <BR>primarily =
with=20
nature as an object, not as an objectivating force. <BR><BR>As =
for=20
Juan's situation, we can easily recognize Juan as a character who has =
<BR>been=20
constructed by the prevailing societal ethos of his location and=20
<BR>social-historical context. Juan is unable to be reflexive =
about his=20
being <BR>constructed and so he believes that he has it figured out.=20
When he realizes <BR>that he 'had it' figured out, he may be =
able to=20
understand Foucault's <BR>positing of power not in terms of morality, =
but in=20
terms of local practices. <BR><BR>For Kant, the law and morality =
represented=20
the same thing. Today we <BR>distinguish ethics from morality as that =
which=20
pertains to personal private <BR>matters but we still get embroiled in =
disputes over right and wrong in which <BR>the law is often the only =
limiting=20
factor between two or more disparate <BR>ethical positions. In =
those=20
cases where the law is determing individuals' <BR>ethical consciences, =
resistance is surely bred, one such form being <BR>homosexuality in =
its many=20
variations. But, the homosexuality does not <BR>necessarily =
occur as an=20
ethical position, but instead as a way of exerting or <BR>expressing=20
power/resistance. I tend to think of power/resistance as a =
<BR>metaphor=20
of the antibody-antigen or enzyme-substrate complex. =
<BR><BR>Vunch</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160--
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
There seems to be quite a bit of Kant-bashing going on here, most of it =
based on a misrepresentation of Kant reduced to the categorical =
imperative.=20
For anybody seriously interested in the key problem of passages between =
incomparable discourse systems I could recommend a reading of Kant's =
_Critique of Judgement_. Here Kant deals exactly with the issues we've =
been discussing, namely how to operate a passage between the different =
faculties and thus how to legitimate a moral code. He ends up =
recognising that there can be no absolute basis for a moral code and the =
best he can do is to provide analogies. For those interested, you might =
also want to have a look at Lyotard's reading of the Third Critique (in =
the Kant notes of _Le Differend_ and in more detail in =
_L'enthousiasme_) which I believe is very much compatible with a =
Foucauldian stance.
Yves
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Vunch@xxxxxxx=20
To: foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: Foucault and Kant
In a message dated 2/1/01 8:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,=20
thegreatfandincke@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:=20
We all knew that power systems and knowledge=20
systems affected people's morality. Foucault's radicality is in =
locating=20
ALL morality within power/knowledge. In ways like this, he is=20
significantly=20
transcendental, and therefore, in a broad and not negligible sense, =
a=20
Kantian after all.=20
Foucault is not Kantian because Kant reconstructed how the =
transcentental=20
subject, individuals if you will, reconstructed their knowledge of =
nature. =20
He did not analyze how humans form social groups and societies. The =
object=20
of knowledge for Kant was nature, that is, things which are primarily=20
perceived by the senses knowledge of which is constructed during the=20
developmental lifespan of each individual. Knowledge of society, =
which=20
Foucault reconstructs, is already existing before the individual is =
born and=20
constitutes that individual as he/she grows, something that nature =
does not=20
do. Society is a social force construing what each individual is =
through=20
both the historical background of beliefs and through the current =
network of=20
individual cognitive acts. Society is not nature. To the extent that =
Kantian metaphysics is unable to harbor the difference between natural =
and=20
social epistomology (what constitutes valid knowledge) is the extent =
to which=20
his moral metaphysics runs aground, as in his notion of the =
universality of=20
the categorical imperative. But, for Kant, we should understand that =
he was=20
attempting to free science from the binding limits of religion and so =
dealt=20
primarily with nature as an object, not as an objectivating force. =20
As for Juan's situation, we can easily recognize Juan as a character =
who has=20
been constructed by the prevailing societal ethos of his location and=20
social-historical context. Juan is unable to be reflexive about his =
being=20
constructed and so he believes that he has it figured out. When he =
realizes=20
that he 'had it' figured out, he may be able to understand Foucault's=20
positing of power not in terms of morality, but in terms of local =
practices.=20
For Kant, the law and morality represented the same thing. Today we=20
distinguish ethics from morality as that which pertains to personal =
private=20
matters but we still get embroiled in disputes over right and wrong in =
which=20
the law is often the only limiting factor between two or more =
disparate=20
ethical positions. In those cases where the law is determing =
individuals'=20
ethical consciences, resistance is surely bred, one such form being=20
homosexuality in its many variations. But, the homosexuality does not =
necessarily occur as an ethical position, but instead as a way of =
exerting or=20
expressing power/resistance. I tend to think of power/resistance as a =
metaphor of the antibody-antigen or enzyme-substrate complex.=20
Vunch=20
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>There seems to be quite a bit of =
Kant-bashing=20
going on here, most of it based on a misrepresentation of Kant reduced =
to the=20
categorical imperative. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For anybody seriously interested in the =
key problem=20
of passages between incomparable discourse systems I could recommend a =
reading=20
of Kant's _Critique of Judgement_. Here Kant deals exactly with the =
issues we've=20
been discussing, namely how to operate a passage between the different =
faculties=20
and thus how to legitimate a moral code. He ends up recognising =
that there=20
can be no absolute basis for a moral code and the best he can do is to =
provide=20
analogies. </FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>For those interested, you =
might also=20
want to have a look at Lyotard's reading of the Third Critique (in the =
Kant=20
notes of _Le Differend_ and in more detail in _L'enthousiasme_) =
which I=20
believe is very much compatible with a Foucauldian stance.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yves</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3DVunch@xxxxxxx =
href=3D"mailto:Vunch@xxxxxxx";>Vunch@xxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
title=3Dfoucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
=
href=3D"mailto:foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>foucault@lists.villag=
e.virginia.edu</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, February 02, 2001 =
4:54=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Foucault and =
Kant</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3Darial,helvetica><FONT size=3D2>In a =
message dated=20
2/1/01 8:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR><A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:thegreatfandincke@xxxxxxxxxxx";>thegreatfandincke@hotmail.c=
om</A>=20
writes: <BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px =
solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"=20
TYPE=3D"CITE">We all knew that power systems and knowledge <BR>systems =
affected people's morality. Foucault's radicality is in =
locating=20
<BR>ALL morality within power/knowledge. In ways like this, he =
is=20
<BR>significantly <BR>transcendental, and therefore, in a broad and =
not=20
negligible sense, a <BR>Kantian after all.=20
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Foucault is not Kantian because Kant=20
reconstructed how the transcentental <BR>subject, individuals if you =
will,=20
reconstructed their knowledge of nature. <BR>He did not analyze =
how=20
humans form social groups and societies. The object <BR>of =
knowledge for=20
Kant was nature, that is, things which are primarily <BR>perceived by =
the=20
senses knowledge of which is constructed during the <BR>developmental =
lifespan=20
of each individual. Knowledge of society, which <BR>Foucault=20
reconstructs, is already existing before the individual is born and=20
<BR>constitutes that individual as he/she grows, something that nature =
does=20
not <BR>do. Society is a social force construing what each =
individual is=20
through <BR>both the historical background of beliefs and through the =
current=20
network of <BR>individual cognitive acts. Society is not nature. =
To the extent that <BR>Kantian metaphysics is unable to harbor =
the=20
difference between natural and <BR>social epistomology (what =
constitutes valid=20
knowledge) is the extent to which <BR>his moral metaphysics runs =
aground, as=20
in his notion of the universality of <BR>the categorical imperative.=20
But, for Kant, we should understand that he was <BR>attempting =
to free=20
science from the binding limits of religion and so dealt <BR>primarily =
with=20
nature as an object, not as an objectivating force. <BR><BR>As =
for=20
Juan's situation, we can easily recognize Juan as a character who has =
<BR>been=20
constructed by the prevailing societal ethos of his location and=20
<BR>social-historical context. Juan is unable to be reflexive =
about his=20
being <BR>constructed and so he believes that he has it figured out.=20
When he realizes <BR>that he 'had it' figured out, he may be =
able to=20
understand Foucault's <BR>positing of power not in terms of morality, =
but in=20
terms of local practices. <BR><BR>For Kant, the law and morality =
represented=20
the same thing. Today we <BR>distinguish ethics from morality as that =
which=20
pertains to personal private <BR>matters but we still get embroiled in =
disputes over right and wrong in which <BR>the law is often the only =
limiting=20
factor between two or more disparate <BR>ethical positions. In =
those=20
cases where the law is determing individuals' <BR>ethical consciences, =
resistance is surely bred, one such form being <BR>homosexuality in =
its many=20
variations. But, the homosexuality does not <BR>necessarily =
occur as an=20
ethical position, but instead as a way of exerting or <BR>expressing=20
power/resistance. I tend to think of power/resistance as a =
<BR>metaphor=20
of the antibody-antigen or enzyme-substrate complex. =
<BR><BR>Vunch</FONT>=20
</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C08D5F.3F6D2160--