Re: Explaining why he was a philosopher.

Ofcourse I agree that he was doin historical ontology.
In " What is Enlightement?" and "Critique and
Aufklarung" he explain " How we gonna do ontology of
ourselves." The line that connects Foucault and
Heidegger is Nitzche. Heidegger read few lectures on
Nitzche, then he was addopting the Nitzche's genealogy
to make historycal ontology of the oblivion of the
Being. Foucault said in interview, which i found on
the Net, that he didnt meant to write anything in his
life, until he read Nitzche. In "Nitzche, The
Genealogy, The History." and in the Archeology of the
Knowledge he explains the Nitzchean and his historycal
methods. So the historisation of the problems began
with Nitzche - the real history vs. the methahistory.
And Maybe the main method of Foucault was the
historical ontology. But I dont have idea how every
ontology is historical. You are the teacher here. If
You have the comprehension of the historycal ontology,
You'll be the one who will "speak":)). Yet I cant say
nothing about how all those problems lie in the
historycal ontology, and this question is importenant.
I dont have Your expirience. I am trying to deal with
the notions of "dispositif", "serie","discipline" and
so on , in order to see why "The Order" is so
importenant to foucault.


--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (My apologies to all, this message will probably
> come through twice)
> Jivko
> Thanks for explaining your perspective. On this
> point at least now we'
> re not as far apart as you seem to think.
> I think that whilst you make the claim that "I am
> not defining here
> what is philosophy", your later suggestions that you
> "try to explain
> why Foucault was philosopher" and that "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"
> show that you are assuming a definition of what
> philosophy is, and
> therefore (non explicitly perhaps) you _are_
> offering a definition. And
> it is one which is open to dispute.
> >In the Philosophy faculty of Sofia U.
> >we assume, that he was a Kantian.
> Of course, you must accept that this is not a closed
> question. In many
> respects I would agree that he was, but of a
> particular kind and with a
> particular take. Others would counter that argument
> though.
> 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!
> It's difficult to explain the thesis of my book and
> other work in a
> brief paragraph, but let me just say that I think
> that Foucault is
> investigating those kinds of questions, but all at
> the level of
> historical ontology. There's the line in the late
> Foucault about 'a
> historical ontology of ourselves, a historical
> ontology of the present'.
> Ontology is the study of being. Heidegger reads
> Kant's first critique
> as a work of ontology, not of epistemology (as the
> neo-Kantians of
> Marburg did). Following this lead I read Foucault's
> Archaeology of
> Knowledge as a work of ontology, or rather
> historical ontology, because
> for Foucault, like the later Heidegger, and unlike
> the early Heidegger
> or Kant, this is always a historical (to be
> understood in a non-
> disciplinary sense) investigation. Historical
> ontology, following
> Heidegger, I read as a historicisation of the
> Kantian problematic, and
> I trace its thought through Nietzsche, Heidegger and
> Foucault. I think
> that Foucault's investigations of power, freedom,
> space, etc. are all
> working at this level. What would _you_ understand
> as historical
> ontology then?
> >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. :-))
> Well, don't generalise about the 'west'... we've
> been there before...
> There's a peculiar notion behind your suggestion
> here, which implies
> that because you have a take on Foucault which may
> or not be novel, '
> true', interesting, etc., anyone who doesn't have
> the same view is
> either deficient in their philosophical 'training',
> or has been
> brainwashed or denied the revelation you have found
> or been given in
> Bulgaria. But given that I now teach politics and
> philosophy I must be
> complicit in this hiding, or at least its
> accomplice.
> Stuart
> --

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

Partial thread listing: