Yes, that must be the one. I had it in a xerox form, but not with me at
the moment.
At 12:21 PM 7/17/2003 +0930, you wrote:
>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
> >
the moment.
At 12:21 PM 7/17/2003 +0930, you wrote:
>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
> >