At 10:07 31/07/02 -0400, you wrote:
Actually, while we're on the subject of savoir, has anyone read Helene
Cixous & Jaques Derrida's 'Veils'? (either in French or in translation)
It's 'about' knowledge and vision, and makes quite a lot of the links
between the french savoir and voir - to know and to see. Do we see in
Foucault the tendency that Guy Debord noted in Western thought, which is to
reduce everything to the categories of vision? In other words, the more we
'see' the more we 'know'?
>S.Guhathakurta@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I am no native French but have been learning the language for the past one
> > year.
> >
> > Savoir - to know a fact.
> >
> > Connaitre - to know or be familiar with a person.
>
>Right... As Aris has indicated, one interesting implication is that connaitre
>would be open ended: you can always know someone better, or less well. Savoir
>seems much more binary: you know something, or you don't.
>
>Think about that in relation to ongoing debates regarding the revisable,
>fallible, [etc.] nature of all knowledge. This poses a bit of a problem if
>one is working with a binary notion of knowledge.
>
>Phil
------------
Daniel Smith
t22ds@xxxxxxxxxx
Actually, while we're on the subject of savoir, has anyone read Helene
Cixous & Jaques Derrida's 'Veils'? (either in French or in translation)
It's 'about' knowledge and vision, and makes quite a lot of the links
between the french savoir and voir - to know and to see. Do we see in
Foucault the tendency that Guy Debord noted in Western thought, which is to
reduce everything to the categories of vision? In other words, the more we
'see' the more we 'know'?
>S.Guhathakurta@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > I am no native French but have been learning the language for the past one
> > year.
> >
> > Savoir - to know a fact.
> >
> > Connaitre - to know or be familiar with a person.
>
>Right... As Aris has indicated, one interesting implication is that connaitre
>would be open ended: you can always know someone better, or less well. Savoir
>seems much more binary: you know something, or you don't.
>
>Think about that in relation to ongoing debates regarding the revisable,
>fallible, [etc.] nature of all knowledge. This poses a bit of a problem if
>one is working with a binary notion of knowledge.
>
>Phil
------------
Daniel Smith
t22ds@xxxxxxxxxx