Nate, do you mean the translation of 'What is an author?' in Bouchard's
collection of Foucault's essays?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:01 PM
Subject: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> 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
>
collection of Foucault's essays?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Roberts" <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:01 PM
Subject: Foucault and the analytical philosophy
> 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
>