<html><DIV></DIV>
<P>Stuart Jiviko and all others following</P>
<P>To add a bit on your interesting discussion.</P>
<P>I think one reason why Foucault considered himself a philosopher was because he was concerned with the question of truth...he considered the question of truth as a philosophical question par excellence..</P>
<P>Paul Veyene quotes him as saying once that .."the great question, according to Heidegger, was to know what was the ground for truth; according to Wittgenstein, it was to know what one was saying when one spoke the truth; but in my opionion . .. the question is: how is that there is so little truth in truth"</P>
<P>This explains in what sense he was concerned with the question of truth and some glimpse of his possible divergences from Heidegger..</P>
<P>I think on the whole I agree with Stuart's description of Foucault's work as historical ontology and I also have sympathy with his project of drawing parallels between Foucault and Heidegger, although I do think that he leaves the question of their divergences untouched. At least this is my impression after reading these mails and earlier reading the preface of his book posted on this list. May be when we read his book we would be clearer about this. Any way I think this is an important question. After all Heidegger's question is not just about being it is primarily about Being of beings. </P>
<P>And this (that is the question of Focuault's and Heidegger's divergences) also pertains to Foucault's relationship with neo Kantians which is, I think, more complex and ambivelent than is described by Stuart (may be the same is true for the relation between Heidegger and neo Kantians but I am not sure). After all Deleuze describes Foucault as a sort of neo Kantian in his book on Foucualt. Furthermore if Heiedegger's project can be described as sort of 'historicisation of Kantian problematic' a question naturally arises how this is related to an other 'historicisation of Kantian problematic' i.e neo Kantianism? May be that answer to this question will lead us to the understanding of Foucault's relation with neo Kantianism in its complexity and ambivelence and this might also be true cocnerning Foucault's and Heidegger's relation.</P>
<P>these are few disjuncted ramblings for further consideration.</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></html>
<P>Stuart Jiviko and all others following</P>
<P>To add a bit on your interesting discussion.</P>
<P>I think one reason why Foucault considered himself a philosopher was because he was concerned with the question of truth...he considered the question of truth as a philosophical question par excellence..</P>
<P>Paul Veyene quotes him as saying once that .."the great question, according to Heidegger, was to know what was the ground for truth; according to Wittgenstein, it was to know what one was saying when one spoke the truth; but in my opionion . .. the question is: how is that there is so little truth in truth"</P>
<P>This explains in what sense he was concerned with the question of truth and some glimpse of his possible divergences from Heidegger..</P>
<P>I think on the whole I agree with Stuart's description of Foucault's work as historical ontology and I also have sympathy with his project of drawing parallels between Foucault and Heidegger, although I do think that he leaves the question of their divergences untouched. At least this is my impression after reading these mails and earlier reading the preface of his book posted on this list. May be when we read his book we would be clearer about this. Any way I think this is an important question. After all Heidegger's question is not just about being it is primarily about Being of beings. </P>
<P>And this (that is the question of Focuault's and Heidegger's divergences) also pertains to Foucault's relationship with neo Kantians which is, I think, more complex and ambivelent than is described by Stuart (may be the same is true for the relation between Heidegger and neo Kantians but I am not sure). After all Deleuze describes Foucault as a sort of neo Kantian in his book on Foucualt. Furthermore if Heiedegger's project can be described as sort of 'historicisation of Kantian problematic' a question naturally arises how this is related to an other 'historicisation of Kantian problematic' i.e neo Kantianism? May be that answer to this question will lead us to the understanding of Foucault's relation with neo Kantianism in its complexity and ambivelence and this might also be true cocnerning Foucault's and Heidegger's relation.</P>
<P>these are few disjuncted ramblings for further consideration.</P>
<P>regards</P>
<P>ali</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P><br clear=all><hr>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at <a href="http://www.hotmail.com";>http://www.hotmail.com</a>.<br></p></html>