Kevin,
In What is Enlightenment Foucault describes the "historical ontology of
ourselves" as "an attitude, an ethos, a philosophic life in which the
critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical
analysis of the limits imposed on us and an experiment with the
possibility of going beyond them." (in the Rabinow book Ethics page 319)
I see two parts to the "historical ontology of ourselves." There is the
critical element and there is the experimental.
I see archeology and genealogy as the critical elements. The critical
element is a limit-attitude best characterized by this question:
"In what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory, what place
is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of
arbitrary constraint?" (Ibid. 316)
This limit-attitude is archeological "in the sense that it will not
seek to identify the universal structures of knowledge" rather it "will
seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think,
say, and do as so many historical events." (Ibid. 315) A more detailed
explanation of the consequences of treating instances of discourse in
this way is a main them of Archeology of Knowledge.
It is genealogical because it "will separate out, from the contingency
that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing
or thinking what we are, do, or think." (Ibid. 315-316)
I hope that helps.
Take care,
Sam
Kevin Turner wrote:
>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
>
In What is Enlightenment Foucault describes the "historical ontology of
ourselves" as "an attitude, an ethos, a philosophic life in which the
critique of what we are is at one and the same time the historical
analysis of the limits imposed on us and an experiment with the
possibility of going beyond them." (in the Rabinow book Ethics page 319)
I see two parts to the "historical ontology of ourselves." There is the
critical element and there is the experimental.
I see archeology and genealogy as the critical elements. The critical
element is a limit-attitude best characterized by this question:
"In what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory, what place
is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of
arbitrary constraint?" (Ibid. 316)
This limit-attitude is archeological "in the sense that it will not
seek to identify the universal structures of knowledge" rather it "will
seek to treat the instances of discourse that articulate what we think,
say, and do as so many historical events." (Ibid. 315) A more detailed
explanation of the consequences of treating instances of discourse in
this way is a main them of Archeology of Knowledge.
It is genealogical because it "will separate out, from the contingency
that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing
or thinking what we are, do, or think." (Ibid. 315-316)
I hope that helps.
Take care,
Sam
Kevin Turner wrote:
>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
>