Hello All,
This may be a ridiculously simple question, and/or I may be barking up
the wrong tree, but it's something I'm still grappling with after
reading OT twice. Might someone endeavor a definition
of "representation" as it is used in the book? I'm fairly new to the
Foucault canon, so perhaps he addresses this elsewhere. And indeed,
he appears to contradict himself not a few times. But representation
is at the core of OT and I find myself working through the
complexities of the book with the anxiety that my own understading of
how "representation" is being used fluctuates between a Kantian
philosophical key and more modern uses (semiology, etc).
Any light-shedding would be much appreciated...
Best,
Daniel Spector
This may be a ridiculously simple question, and/or I may be barking up
the wrong tree, but it's something I'm still grappling with after
reading OT twice. Might someone endeavor a definition
of "representation" as it is used in the book? I'm fairly new to the
Foucault canon, so perhaps he addresses this elsewhere. And indeed,
he appears to contradict himself not a few times. But representation
is at the core of OT and I find myself working through the
complexities of the book with the anxiety that my own understading of
how "representation" is being used fluctuates between a Kantian
philosophical key and more modern uses (semiology, etc).
Any light-shedding would be much appreciated...
Best,
Daniel Spector