I seem to remember that there is a discussion of the analytic dimensions of
Foucault's thought in the introduction to Foucault and his Interlocutors,
ed. Arnold Davidson.
Also, there are two different versions of "what is an author" in
English. The one in Rabinow's Foucualt Reader is used more by literary
theory types. The other version (which I will to give the reference for
later, since I don't have it handy) contain a number of statements relating
to Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy of language (particularly about
nameing, definite descriptions, etc., if memory serves). I have always
found this version to be far more interesting --and, in reference to the
previous question about his contact with (or knowledge of) analytic
philosophy, it could help us place this a bit better.
I also remember (an interview, I think) where Foucault excuses himself
saying "I'm not an analytic philosopher --nobody's perfect.")
best wishes,
Nate
At 02:15 PM 7/16/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>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
Foucault's thought in the introduction to Foucault and his Interlocutors,
ed. Arnold Davidson.
Also, there are two different versions of "what is an author" in
English. The one in Rabinow's Foucualt Reader is used more by literary
theory types. The other version (which I will to give the reference for
later, since I don't have it handy) contain a number of statements relating
to Anglo-American (analytic) philosophy of language (particularly about
nameing, definite descriptions, etc., if memory serves). I have always
found this version to be far more interesting --and, in reference to the
previous question about his contact with (or knowledge of) analytic
philosophy, it could help us place this a bit better.
I also remember (an interview, I think) where Foucault excuses himself
saying "I'm not an analytic philosopher --nobody's perfect.")
best wishes,
Nate
At 02:15 PM 7/16/2003 +1000, you wrote:
>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