A few thoughts from me as well on this discussion:
First of all, I'm not so sure if etymological analysis is not
appropriate for an in-depth discussion; in my opinion, it can be very
much helpful (especially if we bear in mind one of the first arguments
of the poststructuralists that 'language constitutes reality) BUT ONLY
if it is being used in a way which will uncover connections and meanings
among/within terms. After all, isn't this what Derrida so often does in
many of his works? Picking up a term and finding its contradictory
meanings, origins, residual traces of previous meanings and so on. It
is in this respect that I consider etymology as appropriate - in its
most 'strict' format (whatever that might be) I agree with the rest of
you.
Also, in my view of things, 'connaitre' has a more 'active', and
'progressive' element towards knowledge (coming to know something),
whereas 'savoir' tends to imply that one is already in possession of
knowledge, that it has absorbed it - maybe some French native speakers
on the list would like to comment?
In addition, Phil wrote:
"pouvoir" [which is, I believe, the only word ever used in
> French-language politics
> for "power], is also a verb, "to be able to."
>
> Does that make it easier for a thinker in French to escape from the "negative"
> view of power?
I don't think Foucault anywhere wishes to 'escape' from the negative
view of power; power has its negative elements BUT NOT ONLY THOSE, it is
also productive. And it is in this context that I think 'pouvoir' is
more suggestive, in that it implies a dynamic process.
Regards
Aris
First of all, I'm not so sure if etymological analysis is not
appropriate for an in-depth discussion; in my opinion, it can be very
much helpful (especially if we bear in mind one of the first arguments
of the poststructuralists that 'language constitutes reality) BUT ONLY
if it is being used in a way which will uncover connections and meanings
among/within terms. After all, isn't this what Derrida so often does in
many of his works? Picking up a term and finding its contradictory
meanings, origins, residual traces of previous meanings and so on. It
is in this respect that I consider etymology as appropriate - in its
most 'strict' format (whatever that might be) I agree with the rest of
you.
Also, in my view of things, 'connaitre' has a more 'active', and
'progressive' element towards knowledge (coming to know something),
whereas 'savoir' tends to imply that one is already in possession of
knowledge, that it has absorbed it - maybe some French native speakers
on the list would like to comment?
In addition, Phil wrote:
"pouvoir" [which is, I believe, the only word ever used in
> French-language politics
> for "power], is also a verb, "to be able to."
>
> Does that make it easier for a thinker in French to escape from the "negative"
> view of power?
I don't think Foucault anywhere wishes to 'escape' from the negative
view of power; power has its negative elements BUT NOT ONLY THOSE, it is
also productive. And it is in this context that I think 'pouvoir' is
more suggestive, in that it implies a dynamic process.
Regards
Aris