Re: Explaining why he was a philosopher.

--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I am versed because of the fact, that actualy i
am graduating in Philosophy. I am not defining here
what is philosophy, but try to explain why Foucault
was philosopher - because philososphy is not a
country, whitch have borders with the other
disciplines, but it is rather notions making -
whatever a philosopher do, he always does notion of
it. So Foucault was doin concepts or notions or maybe
conceptions of his empiric material. He sais "Now,
what we have here? Unity of the discursess ( a
conception)? Nah , we actualy have "Dispersion of the
discurses"( a conception)" or " What is that? This is
Panoptic Dispositif..." Does he is readable for the
philosophers: They "read" his conceptions. I am
writing my diplom work on his philosophy, and there is
loads of work. In the Philosophy faculty of Sofia U.
we assume, that he was a Kantian. And I dont believe
in the specifity of the disciplines, at least because
the philosophy does not make difference, and because
all those disciplines emerged verry late as
distinctif. and stuart, he might be concerned with
deeper problematic ( "the deeper problematic" is the
exact level of the philosophical), but that deeper
problematic is not only the historical ontology - he
investigates the Being of The Man - the space of the
man, his body and the relation between the power and
the body of the man, the problematic of the Life ( The
birth of the clinic and, ofcourse, L'Histoire de la
Sexualite)And , most of all - the freedom!
philosophers like Deleuze and Habermass agree that the
conception "power" is a transcendental notion, and
they make verry fruitful analisis of the
transcendentality of his conception. So this is the
philosophy. I dont know how it is nowadays in the
west. Maybe they hide the philosophical from you,
because the power want to keep the right to workout
the philosophical for itself. Maybe the power wants
the questions on the Being, Life and the Freedom to
be only priority of the power. :-))

> Your simplistic assumption of what other
> 'disciplines' do is also open to
> question.
> 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.
> Stuart

Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail

Partial thread listing: