jataseli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
That's nicely stated. Be a little careful because, as I tried to show in
two of the messages, a transcendent agent is foundational to Foucault
but you are right that he is quick to escape making metaphysical
commitments about the nature of that beast by, instead, "focusing
on practice."
I'm also an amateur mathematician so, I hope I'm doing you a favor
to point out that, no it isn't. That's a terrible analogy. Russel's
famous paradox showed that within a certain formalization of set
theory it was possible to write a sentence of which both that sentence
and its negation could be formally proved true. It is a characteristic of
logic, as understood in Russel's time, that if you can produce even one
such sentence, then your axiomatic system can prove *all* formal
statements both true and false so he collapsed an axiomatic system
into rubbish that had formerly been taken as rock solid. His technique
wasn't a mere technicality -- there was no obvious repair in sight (hence,
the Principia Mathematica, Goedel's refutation of the program, realization
that Turing's halting problem was isomorphic to the problems of proof
procedures, and eventually the correction of "intuitionist" or constructive
mathematics). This has pretty much nothing to do with
the questions at hand. Sorry.
That doesn't quite parse, especially taken as a reply to the question
"Where is the agent in Foucault."
-t
Amateur Philosopher
So one could read Foucault´s attempt to focus on practice instead
of object or subject as a way out of this dilemma.
That's nicely stated. Be a little careful because, as I tried to show in
two of the messages, a transcendent agent is foundational to Foucault
but you are right that he is quick to escape making metaphysical
commitments about the nature of that beast by, instead, "focusing
on practice."
(The dilemma is, I
think, the same as in Russell´s famous paradox).
I'm also an amateur mathematician so, I hope I'm doing you a favor
to point out that, no it isn't. That's a terrible analogy. Russel's
famous paradox showed that within a certain formalization of set
theory it was possible to write a sentence of which both that sentence
and its negation could be formally proved true. It is a characteristic of
logic, as understood in Russel's time, that if you can produce even one
such sentence, then your axiomatic system can prove *all* formal
statements both true and false so he collapsed an axiomatic system
into rubbish that had formerly been taken as rock solid. His technique
wasn't a mere technicality -- there was no obvious repair in sight (hence,
the Principia Mathematica, Goedel's refutation of the program, realization
that Turing's halting problem was isomorphic to the problems of proof
procedures, and eventually the correction of "intuitionist" or constructive
mathematics). This has pretty much nothing to do with
the questions at hand. Sorry.
Anyway, my own answer would be that i) there can be agency insofar as
there are possible courses of action, self-understanding, and ways of
being a person available; ii) finding out what is necessary and what is
contingent in the present, i.e. the diagnostic function of Foucault´s
approach is to point out the locus where action is possible; iii) in
historical perspective there are events of thought, which make new ways of
being a person available with all the dangers these events may bring
about; iv) new thought can have an author, but thouhgt as a event has to
become intelligible,i.e. it has to become effective, and this becoming has
always its historical conditions; so no matter how original or
groundbreaking some person´s thought might be, its acceptance is always
conditioned by neighbouring practices which allow it to have effects in
real.
That doesn't quite parse, especially taken as a reply to the question
"Where is the agent in Foucault."
-t
Amateur Philosopher
Yours
Jani Selin
Arianna wrote:
its a stupid question, that's the answerWhy? The question is a bit vague as stated and may suggest that the
student
is hopelessly enmeshed in a department that is mostly concerned with
making
sure he learns the jargon of his field (as they see it) -- writes papers
that will
fly with reviewers and so forth. On the other hand, aren't there at
least
two kinds of answers that might make sense, depending on the more fully
elaborated question? (a) in Foucault's reader (for whom he built tools);
(b) in Foucault's "we", "ourselves", "one", etc. -- that agency which is
subject to the management of the body, of sex, of madness, etc. The two
answers are not contradictory or exclusive, of course.
It seems like the student is being asked to locate Foucault within a
famous
debate that has structured a lot of sociological research, and to which
researchers
in that field are expected to pay homage -- I would think that's a good
launching
point for many kinds of response. "Stupid question," may be accurate,
but
it isn't very fulfilling.
-t
Amateur Philosopher
jataseli@xxxxxxxxx wrote:_______________________________________________
Hello!_______________________________________________
I´m a PhD student (MSocSc) in the Department of Social Sciences and
Philosophy at the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland.
My sociological research is about the history of drug addiction
treatments
in Finland from 1960´s to present day. In this genealogical study I try
relate the changes in treatment practices to the changes of other
practices, be they discursive or non-discursive, that have made changes
in
treatment practices possible. So basic foucauldian stuff.
My current interests lie in the modern concept of addiction and in the
"original" problematization that the emergence of this concept was
related
to in the late 18th and early 19th century. Furthermore, being a
student
of sociology I confront all the time the question "where´s the agent in
Foucault´s thought". I´ve got a kind of a answer to this question but
it
needs more clarification.
Yours
Jani Selin
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L mailing list
Foucault-L mailing list
_______________________________________________
Foucault-L mailing list