Hi Kevin
Sorry you see it that way. English is not my native language, so I am a
little ''blunt'' when writing. I hope I could be more flexible, but I have
to express myself straitforwardly. I don't see what I falsly attributed to
you, but then again, my post was not a direct response to yours, but to the
las three or four that seemed to me to be getting out of topic.
Hope there is no hard feeling about this.
Regards,
Jean-François
2007/9/20, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> You didn't sound rude – you were rude. Not because of the tone of your
> post, but because you make far too much of the little I said, and attribute
> to me things I didn't say. Such is the way of things
>
> - K.
>
> P.S. Take a look at the subject heading of the emails – a new thread?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jean.frm@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:30:47 -0400
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault: philosopher or historian?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Honestly, I don't care if Foucault was an ''historian'' or a
> > ''philosopher'' or only a original thinker. It does'not change the way
> I
> > understand the texts, and I think it should not. The only way to
> > understand
> > who was Foucault would be to be him... I'ts just plain impossible, so I
> > read
> > the text and try to make sense of them. I studied philosophy, so I
> > understand thoses texts in a philosophical perspective. I do not
> believe
> > I
> > will ever be able to find ''the'' original meaning of the texts, so I
> > just
> > want to have a reading which is both coherend and comprehensive.
> >
> > Then, I must say that (rightly) pointing out Archeology was completed
> > with
> > Genealogy in order to put aside a discussion is, well, not very welcome
> > on
> > my part. I mean, sure you can discard a discussion on Newton by saying
> > Einstein replaced his theory, but then, you're not discussing Newton any
> > longuer. The topic was on ''énoncés'' and the archeology of knowledge,
> > and I
> > propose that, if you wish to start a discussion on genealogy, you start
> a
> > new thread. This is just to be able to have a discussion which will not
> > go
> > everywhere at once.
> >
> > I hope I do not sound rude, it is only a proposal in order to keep
> things
> > clear.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jean-François Mongrain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2007/9/20, Flemming Bjerke <lister@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >> tor, 20 09 2007 kl. 01:03 -0800, skrev Kevin Turner:
> >>> on the question of whether Foucault was a philosoher or historian, you
> >>> should check out the discussion between Gary Gutting
> >>> (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1262) and Béatrice Han
> >>> (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~beatrice/Gutting%20_answer_%
> >>> 202003-05.pdf).
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Foucault was both a philosopher and a historian
> >>> and thus not quite either or more that either.
> >>
> >> I don't really feel it important whether he is a historian or a
> >> philosopher. But, Han's critique of Foucault doesn't appear to dismiss
> >> Foucault. Han writes:
> >>
> >>> Dreyfus and Rabinow both agree with you that "Foucault certainly does
> >>> not want to say that the rules are followed by the speakers" (MF, 81);
> >>> they even take up the example of grammar themselves to suggest that
> >>> compliance to grammatical rules is neither conscious nor reflective
> >>> (MF, 82). However, they deny that the grammatical model can be
> >>> extended to social regularities in the sense that it requires either a
> >>> causal efficacy (Chomsky or Lévi Strauss), or that one should see the
> >>> rules in a much weaker sense, as merely "descriptive approximations"
> >>> devised to specify the norms sustained by social practices themselves
> >>> (Wittgenstein, Heidegger). Both options are rejected by Foucault: the
> >>> first, because he asserts that the rules must not be understood in
> >>> terms of causal determination (cf. quote above, AK, 73-74). The
> >>> second, because of his postulate that the rules can (and must) be
> >>> analysed at the sole level of discourses, and not in their connection
> >>> to social practices (these will only be taken into account after the
> >>> genealogical turn). Therefore, Dreyfus and Rabinow conclude that, as
> >>> the rules of the historical a priori rely neither on physical
> >>> causality nor on non discursive practices, one should reject the idea
> >>> that they are prescriptive, and understand them as merely
> >>> descriptive: they must be "rules which serve to systematise the
> >>> phenomena, that statements can be given coherence according to
> >>> them" (MF, 81). However, this conflicts with the many places in which
> >>> Foucault also attributes to them their own specific efficacy, and
> >>> claims that the historical a priori "makes possible and governs" the
> >>> formation of discourses (AK, 72), and that statements "obey" (AK,
> >>> 108) its rules.
> >>>
> >> I don't think this is convincing: Discourses are discursive practices.
> >> Practices are social. Thus, discourses are social practices. No doubt
> >> they are a special brand of social pracitices and therefore requires
> >> special treatment. Han rejects Foucault's regularity concept because
> >> Foucault does not accept any the following two concepts: "social
> >> regularities ... that ... requires either a causal efficacy" and "...
> >> "descriptive approximations" devised to specify the norms sustained by
> >> social practices themselves". She lets out a third opportunity: social
> >> rules that are cogent for intellegibility, but do not determine what
> >> you say? That is exactly the way I understand Foucault's enounces.
> >>
> >> Eventually, Han says:
> >>
> >>> You're right that, independently of the reconstructions I have
> >>> offered, many of my criticisms implicitly rest on the idea that
> >>> archaeology and genealogy need foundations that Foucault fails to
> >>> provide. I'll readily grant that this is per se a debatable
> >>> assumption, the validity of which depends on what is meant by
> >>> "foundation". Obviously, there can be no foundation in the sense of a
> >>> metaphysical ground, an underlying principle which would unify the
> >>> whole of Foucault's thought in such a way that all his assertions
> >>> could be traced back, one way or another, to that ground.
> >>
> >> That is, she admits that her "foundationalism" is debateable.
> >>
> >> So, what is left, is that Han says that Foucault's works to some extent
> >> is inconsistent. Fine, something is left to do.
> >>
> >> Flemming
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
Sorry you see it that way. English is not my native language, so I am a
little ''blunt'' when writing. I hope I could be more flexible, but I have
to express myself straitforwardly. I don't see what I falsly attributed to
you, but then again, my post was not a direct response to yours, but to the
las three or four that seemed to me to be getting out of topic.
Hope there is no hard feeling about this.
Regards,
Jean-François
2007/9/20, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> You didn't sound rude – you were rude. Not because of the tone of your
> post, but because you make far too much of the little I said, and attribute
> to me things I didn't say. Such is the way of things
>
> - K.
>
> P.S. Take a look at the subject heading of the emails – a new thread?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: jean.frm@xxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:30:47 -0400
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault: philosopher or historian?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Honestly, I don't care if Foucault was an ''historian'' or a
> > ''philosopher'' or only a original thinker. It does'not change the way
> I
> > understand the texts, and I think it should not. The only way to
> > understand
> > who was Foucault would be to be him... I'ts just plain impossible, so I
> > read
> > the text and try to make sense of them. I studied philosophy, so I
> > understand thoses texts in a philosophical perspective. I do not
> believe
> > I
> > will ever be able to find ''the'' original meaning of the texts, so I
> > just
> > want to have a reading which is both coherend and comprehensive.
> >
> > Then, I must say that (rightly) pointing out Archeology was completed
> > with
> > Genealogy in order to put aside a discussion is, well, not very welcome
> > on
> > my part. I mean, sure you can discard a discussion on Newton by saying
> > Einstein replaced his theory, but then, you're not discussing Newton any
> > longuer. The topic was on ''énoncés'' and the archeology of knowledge,
> > and I
> > propose that, if you wish to start a discussion on genealogy, you start
> a
> > new thread. This is just to be able to have a discussion which will not
> > go
> > everywhere at once.
> >
> > I hope I do not sound rude, it is only a proposal in order to keep
> things
> > clear.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jean-François Mongrain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2007/9/20, Flemming Bjerke <lister@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >> tor, 20 09 2007 kl. 01:03 -0800, skrev Kevin Turner:
> >>> on the question of whether Foucault was a philosoher or historian, you
> >>> should check out the discussion between Gary Gutting
> >>> (http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=1262) and Béatrice Han
> >>> (http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~beatrice/Gutting%20_answer_%
> >>> 202003-05.pdf).
> >>>
> >>> Personally, I think Foucault was both a philosopher and a historian
> >>> and thus not quite either or more that either.
> >>
> >> I don't really feel it important whether he is a historian or a
> >> philosopher. But, Han's critique of Foucault doesn't appear to dismiss
> >> Foucault. Han writes:
> >>
> >>> Dreyfus and Rabinow both agree with you that "Foucault certainly does
> >>> not want to say that the rules are followed by the speakers" (MF, 81);
> >>> they even take up the example of grammar themselves to suggest that
> >>> compliance to grammatical rules is neither conscious nor reflective
> >>> (MF, 82). However, they deny that the grammatical model can be
> >>> extended to social regularities in the sense that it requires either a
> >>> causal efficacy (Chomsky or Lévi Strauss), or that one should see the
> >>> rules in a much weaker sense, as merely "descriptive approximations"
> >>> devised to specify the norms sustained by social practices themselves
> >>> (Wittgenstein, Heidegger). Both options are rejected by Foucault: the
> >>> first, because he asserts that the rules must not be understood in
> >>> terms of causal determination (cf. quote above, AK, 73-74). The
> >>> second, because of his postulate that the rules can (and must) be
> >>> analysed at the sole level of discourses, and not in their connection
> >>> to social practices (these will only be taken into account after the
> >>> genealogical turn). Therefore, Dreyfus and Rabinow conclude that, as
> >>> the rules of the historical a priori rely neither on physical
> >>> causality nor on non discursive practices, one should reject the idea
> >>> that they are prescriptive, and understand them as merely
> >>> descriptive: they must be "rules which serve to systematise the
> >>> phenomena, that statements can be given coherence according to
> >>> them" (MF, 81). However, this conflicts with the many places in which
> >>> Foucault also attributes to them their own specific efficacy, and
> >>> claims that the historical a priori "makes possible and governs" the
> >>> formation of discourses (AK, 72), and that statements "obey" (AK,
> >>> 108) its rules.
> >>>
> >> I don't think this is convincing: Discourses are discursive practices.
> >> Practices are social. Thus, discourses are social practices. No doubt
> >> they are a special brand of social pracitices and therefore requires
> >> special treatment. Han rejects Foucault's regularity concept because
> >> Foucault does not accept any the following two concepts: "social
> >> regularities ... that ... requires either a causal efficacy" and "...
> >> "descriptive approximations" devised to specify the norms sustained by
> >> social practices themselves". She lets out a third opportunity: social
> >> rules that are cogent for intellegibility, but do not determine what
> >> you say? That is exactly the way I understand Foucault's enounces.
> >>
> >> Eventually, Han says:
> >>
> >>> You're right that, independently of the reconstructions I have
> >>> offered, many of my criticisms implicitly rest on the idea that
> >>> archaeology and genealogy need foundations that Foucault fails to
> >>> provide. I'll readily grant that this is per se a debatable
> >>> assumption, the validity of which depends on what is meant by
> >>> "foundation". Obviously, there can be no foundation in the sense of a
> >>> metaphysical ground, an underlying principle which would unify the
> >>> whole of Foucault's thought in such a way that all his assertions
> >>> could be traced back, one way or another, to that ground.
> >>
> >> That is, she admits that her "foundationalism" is debateable.
> >>
> >> So, what is left, is that Han says that Foucault's works to some extent
> >> is inconsistent. Fine, something is left to do.
> >>
> >> Flemming
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list