On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:04:04 -0400
"Jean-François Mongrain" <jean.frm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I worked a little on the Archeology of knowledge, and the choise of
> ''énoncé'' by Foucault seems to answer the need of something like a ''past
> tense substantive''. Thus ''un énoncé'' would be better translated as ''a
> stated'', as it represent the time qualification of something that exist
> only in a history of practices but is idependent of an anthropological
> history (formulated in reference to a transcendental subject a la Hegel.)
>
As I understand your point l'énoncé is a construct made for historical
analysis, and it has no relevance outside this field. But, in
l'archelogie, Foucault does not define "l'énoncé" as "something that
exist only in a history of practices", but as an existence function. I
must also admit that I feel a bit uneasy imagining phenomena as having
existence in the past, but not in present, and as having no impact on
the future.
Flemming
"Jean-François Mongrain" <jean.frm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I worked a little on the Archeology of knowledge, and the choise of
> ''énoncé'' by Foucault seems to answer the need of something like a ''past
> tense substantive''. Thus ''un énoncé'' would be better translated as ''a
> stated'', as it represent the time qualification of something that exist
> only in a history of practices but is idependent of an anthropological
> history (formulated in reference to a transcendental subject a la Hegel.)
>
As I understand your point l'énoncé is a construct made for historical
analysis, and it has no relevance outside this field. But, in
l'archelogie, Foucault does not define "l'énoncé" as "something that
exist only in a history of practices", but as an existence function. I
must also admit that I feel a bit uneasy imagining phenomena as having
existence in the past, but not in present, and as having no impact on
the future.
Flemming