Thanks everyone for your very useful replies.
I find this question of Foucault's realtion to the analytical philosophy of
action, and to analytical philosophy generally, fascinating (I don't find
the link to Rorty very interesting in this regard - he is no analytical
philosopher - not that he is 'postmodern' either). Despite coming from an
analytical philosophy background, I know next to nothing about 'APA'. The
thing that struck me about 'The Subject and Power' is simply that it is
highly analytical, in structure, method, what have you. It's like Foucault
is explicating his concept of power under the rules governing the production
of discourse in analytical philosophy.
As far as awarness of APA goes, I don't know. Although what Foucault writes
looks a lot like analytical philosophy, it doesn't show much awareness of
the minefield of issues around deefining action and understanding what
action is. Not that I'm suggesting this debate is really that worthwhile,
but it's as if Foucault adopts the analytical style and the concept of
'action', which appeals to his positivist instincts, while in fact making no
real engagement with APA.
I'd be very interested Francois if you could elaborate on what you say about
the links between Foucault and APA in the Archaeology of Knowledge.
MArk
I find this question of Foucault's realtion to the analytical philosophy of
action, and to analytical philosophy generally, fascinating (I don't find
the link to Rorty very interesting in this regard - he is no analytical
philosopher - not that he is 'postmodern' either). Despite coming from an
analytical philosophy background, I know next to nothing about 'APA'. The
thing that struck me about 'The Subject and Power' is simply that it is
highly analytical, in structure, method, what have you. It's like Foucault
is explicating his concept of power under the rules governing the production
of discourse in analytical philosophy.
As far as awarness of APA goes, I don't know. Although what Foucault writes
looks a lot like analytical philosophy, it doesn't show much awareness of
the minefield of issues around deefining action and understanding what
action is. Not that I'm suggesting this debate is really that worthwhile,
but it's as if Foucault adopts the analytical style and the concept of
'action', which appeals to his positivist instincts, while in fact making no
real engagement with APA.
I'd be very interested Francois if you could elaborate on what you say about
the links between Foucault and APA in the Archaeology of Knowledge.
MArk