historical ontology is used in the same way as "history of the present"; its
particular subject are the questions "what is going on today?", "what is the
other of the present?", "what is at stake now and here?" etc. So it is more
explicitly focused on the topical problems and problematizations of "our
time".
Archeology and genealogy, but also critical analysis , evenementalisation
and strategical analysis (see "what is critique?") are methods that must be
used here, but they are not the same.
yours,
machiel karskens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:35 PM
Subject: [Foucault-L] historical ontology
> it is quite a while since i have posed a question to the list, and a lot
of new people have joined since then. so, i would first like to say hello
and welcome.
>
> i have been reading a number of texts by foucault which discuss kant's
reflections on enlightenment and revolution, and have also been reading some
secondary commentary - by gordon, dean, and so on - which discuss these
texts by foucault. this has left me somewhat confused, and my confusion runs
as follows:
>
> does foucault use the phrase "historical ontology" as a kind of synonym
for genealogy; or are archaeology and genealogy the method and design of
historical ontology. to put the question slightly differently, what is the
relationship between archaeology and genealogy on the one hand, and
historical ontology on the other?
>
> regards - kevin.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> laid by the gate at the foot of the garden my view stretches out from the
fence to the wall
> no words could explain no action determine just watching the trees and the
leaves as they fall
> (Ian Curtis)
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
particular subject are the questions "what is going on today?", "what is the
other of the present?", "what is at stake now and here?" etc. So it is more
explicitly focused on the topical problems and problematizations of "our
time".
Archeology and genealogy, but also critical analysis , evenementalisation
and strategical analysis (see "what is critique?") are methods that must be
used here, but they are not the same.
yours,
machiel karskens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Turner" <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Foucault List" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 11:35 PM
Subject: [Foucault-L] historical ontology
> it is quite a while since i have posed a question to the list, and a lot
of new people have joined since then. so, i would first like to say hello
and welcome.
>
> i have been reading a number of texts by foucault which discuss kant's
reflections on enlightenment and revolution, and have also been reading some
secondary commentary - by gordon, dean, and so on - which discuss these
texts by foucault. this has left me somewhat confused, and my confusion runs
as follows:
>
> does foucault use the phrase "historical ontology" as a kind of synonym
for genealogy; or are archaeology and genealogy the method and design of
historical ontology. to put the question slightly differently, what is the
relationship between archaeology and genealogy on the one hand, and
historical ontology on the other?
>
> regards - kevin.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> laid by the gate at the foot of the garden my view stretches out from the
fence to the wall
> no words could explain no action determine just watching the trees and the
leaves as they fall
> (Ian Curtis)
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>