RE: Foucault's critical project and Habermas Foucault debate

First I must thank everybody for their time in responding. There were many
off list interesting replies as well. Some people sent the relevant chapters
of their PhD theses for which I am most grateful.

I find Hans' book interesting because it treats Foucault's as a philosopher
and systematically. I agree with Arianna that this book together with
Stuart's book represent a shift in Foucault
'scholarship' in terms of engagement with the texts (including
untranslated ones) and philosophical rigour" (conveyed in private

Therefore, as I said earlier, I am very much interested in initiating
dialogue here and elsewhere on these two books. It occurred to me only after
reading Han's introduction carefully that it would be fruitful to tackle it
in conjunction with Stuart's book.

I have read introduction so far and it is interesting. It is interesting in
its emphasis on Foucault's Kant connection, on the centrality of
transcendental theme in Foucault.

Although I am a bit disconcerted by the way she periodises Foucault's work
(nothing wrong with that but accompanying notions of former and later are
not worthwhile for philosophical purposes). Also I was a bit disappointed by
the possible angles form, which she intends to problematise Foucault's
trajectory (familiar power subject clichés).

Han's take on Foucault and phenomenology seems interesting and important
too. However the claim that Foucault ends up repeating Husserl's mistake of
confusing empirical with transcendental seems to me facile at least at this
stage. Again she rightly points to Foucault's close connection with
Heideggerian ontology but the way she describes it seems too hasty and
ambiguous. Also the claim that Heideggerian ontology is a phenomenology
needs more questioning.

Although it is a bit early to pronounce but I have already a feeling that it
might have been unfortunate that the thesis on which the book is based was
done under Dreyfus and heavily influenced by his thinking at points. This is
not to show any disregard fro Dreyfus?s great works but the original points
of Han?s book belong simply to a different trajectory.

These are just few hasty drawn points. I propose if people are sufficiently
interested, we can start with introduction, which seems to me a good point
to get to the heart of issues involved.

Best regards

The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

Partial thread listing: