On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:43:18PM +1000, peter chamberlain wrote:
> On 6/15/07, Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:10:03PM +1000, peter chamberlain wrote:
> > > perhaps you could start from here...
> > >
> > > http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
> > >
> > > if you take this section...
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human
> > > > nature and political problems, then differences arose between
> > > > us. And contrary to what you think, you can't prevent me from
> > > > believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the
> > > > realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and
> > > > concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within
> > > > our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as
> > > > a result form part of our class system; and one can't, however
> > > > regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or
> > > > justify a fight which should-and shall in principle--overthrow
> > > > the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation
> > > > for which I can't find the historical justification.
> > >
> > > ...and substitute the themes of human nature and justice with the
> > > notion of agency then the outcome is the same, perhaps? when one
> > > speaks of agency, human agency, they are possible referring to a
> > > universally and trans-historical idea. such a conceptualization
> > > would perhaps fail to acknowledge the knowledge systems that
> > > facilitated the very emergence of the concept to begin with.
> >
> > I think this is to make a mistake with respect to the significance
> > of human nature in the debate. It is the question of what demands
> > human psychology makes of its social environment which defines
> > justice. This is quite apart from agency, even though what is
> > attributed to human nature cannot be attributed to social structure.
>
> not sure what you mean by this. seems to me foucault's point is that
> if one tries to pinpoint what exactly constitutes human nature,
> then they do so by calling upon conceptualizations that transcend
> any particular discourse. by doing so, they would fail to recognize
> that these very conceptualizations emerge as a result of certain
> discourses.
Hm. Is it the conceptualization which is supposed to transcend the
discourse or is it the object of the conceptualization? In any case,
if the only connection you are drawing between agency and human nature
is that both are concepts which (it is said) are supposed to transcend
all discourses, then I have made a mistake.
> also i don't think foucault would differentiate between social
> environment and the demands of human psychology, this seems to imply a
> form of subject/object dichotomy.
I just meant that human psychology makes certain demands of its
environment, only some of which have to do with the social environment;
only those might fit into the category of justice.
> On 6/15/07, Andrew Cady <d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 03:10:03PM +1000, peter chamberlain wrote:
> > > perhaps you could start from here...
> > >
> > > http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm
> > >
> > > if you take this section...
> > >
> > > > On the other hand, when we discussed the problem of human
> > > > nature and political problems, then differences arose between
> > > > us. And contrary to what you think, you can't prevent me from
> > > > believing that these notions of human nature, of justice, of the
> > > > realisation of the essence of human beings, are all notions and
> > > > concepts which have been formed within our civilisation, within
> > > > our type of knowledge and our form of philosophy, and that as
> > > > a result form part of our class system; and one can't, however
> > > > regrettable it may be, put forward these notions to describe or
> > > > justify a fight which should-and shall in principle--overthrow
> > > > the very fundaments of our society. This is an extrapolation
> > > > for which I can't find the historical justification.
> > >
> > > ...and substitute the themes of human nature and justice with the
> > > notion of agency then the outcome is the same, perhaps? when one
> > > speaks of agency, human agency, they are possible referring to a
> > > universally and trans-historical idea. such a conceptualization
> > > would perhaps fail to acknowledge the knowledge systems that
> > > facilitated the very emergence of the concept to begin with.
> >
> > I think this is to make a mistake with respect to the significance
> > of human nature in the debate. It is the question of what demands
> > human psychology makes of its social environment which defines
> > justice. This is quite apart from agency, even though what is
> > attributed to human nature cannot be attributed to social structure.
>
> not sure what you mean by this. seems to me foucault's point is that
> if one tries to pinpoint what exactly constitutes human nature,
> then they do so by calling upon conceptualizations that transcend
> any particular discourse. by doing so, they would fail to recognize
> that these very conceptualizations emerge as a result of certain
> discourses.
Hm. Is it the conceptualization which is supposed to transcend the
discourse or is it the object of the conceptualization? In any case,
if the only connection you are drawing between agency and human nature
is that both are concepts which (it is said) are supposed to transcend
all discourses, then I have made a mistake.
> also i don't think foucault would differentiate between social
> environment and the demands of human psychology, this seems to imply a
> form of subject/object dichotomy.
I just meant that human psychology makes certain demands of its
environment, only some of which have to do with the social environment;
only those might fit into the category of justice.