Re: Explaining why he was a philosopher.

Well, your definition of what the task of a philosopher _is_ is one
interpretation, sure. If you're so well versed in philosophy you'll no doubt
realise that 'what is philosophy' is a much debated question, with many
different answers.

Your simplistic assumption of what other 'disciplines' do is also open to

In my book (out next month) and elsewhere, a large part of my argument is
that Foucault has been reduced to one or other academic discipline - that
he's a historical sociologist, or a sociologist, or geographer, or whatever.
Drawing parallels with Heidegger I try to outline why Foucault should not be
reduced in these ways, and that he can be thought of as being concerned with
a much more fundamental problematic, that of historical ontology. I discuss
at length all of those 'concepts' - i.e. the ones you invoke to show for you
that he was a philosopher - and many others. But I don't like that as a
reduction either, as in _this_ is what he was doing, and that's it.

But whilst that's perhaps close to what you're suggesting _now_, it's quite
a distance from what you were suggesting before. Have you noticed how far
you've been forced to move positions in these debates without ever really
acknowledging it, or losing that self-righteous tone?

> But I assume you dont
> have philosophy education, and thats why you dont
> get not the NONSPECIFITY of his philosophy!

Don't assume Jivko, it does you no credit.


Partial thread listing: