Dear Teresa,
I think you are definitely on the right track with your questions. There is
no doubt that there is a connection between the sort of "conversion"
(turning around of the soul) that Socrates provokes, and the forms of
"critique" that characterise the Enlightenment. You should look, in
particular, at Foucault's 1978 lecture "What is Critique?" which draws a
line between the "spiritual" exercises of antiquity, the Biblical criticism
of the early Reformation, and Enlightenment, and modern, forms of critique
and resistance to government. For Foucault, Socrates stands at the beginning
of this tradition. In his last course at the College de France (not yet
published) he makes similar connections between the ancient practice of
'parrhesia', especially in its Cynic manifestation, and modern critique.
Timothy O'Leary
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Edwin Ng <edwin.a.c.ng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Teresa,
>
> Have you consulted the *History of Sexuality: The Care of the Self*? I was
> just reading "Part Two: The Cultivation of the Self" when I looked up at
> the
> monitor and saw your email. I think what Foucault discusses there would
> clarify some of your questions. *Epimeleia heautou* involves a certain
> modality of reason and Foucault finds this most pronounced in
> Epictetus' *Discourses:
>
>
> *'Man... must attend to himself: not, however, as a consequence of some
> defect that would put him in a situation of need and make him in this
> respect inferior to the animals, but because the god [Zeus] deemed it
> right
> that he be able to make free use of himself; and it was for this purpose
> that he endowed him with reason. The latter is not to be understood as a
> substitute for natural faculties that might be lacking; on the contrary it
> is the faculty that enables one to use, at the right time and in the right
> way, the other faculties. In fact, it is this absolutely singular faculty
> that is capable of making use of itself, for it is capable of
> "contemplating
> both itself and everything else" By crowning with this reasoning faculty
> all
> that is already given to us by nature, Zeus gave us the possibility and
> the
> duty to take care of ourselves. It is insofar as he is free and reasonable
> that man is the natural being that has been committed to the care of
> himself' (1986, p.47).
>
> I can't comment on the accuracy of your suggestions but it seems to me
> that
> the above might be relevant to your questions. All the best.
>
> Edwin
>
>
> 2008/5/13 Teresa Mayne <teresa.mayne@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > Thank you for being so direct. I'm probably not explaining myself
> > properly,
> > I have the habit of thinking in questions, so I will try to be more
> clear.
> >
> > I know the difference between fifth century B.C. Greece and the period
> of
> > the Enlightenment. What I'm referring to specifically is Foucault's
> text
> > "What is Enlightenment?". He describes Kant's opinion of the
> > Enlightenment
> > as an 'exit' from the status of 'immaturity'. The 'maturity' that is
> > referred to is "a modification of the preexisting relation linking will,
> > authority, and the use of reason". In "The Hermeneutics of the Subject"
> > Foucault outlines three characteristics of the 'care of the self', the
> > 'epimeleia heautou'. Firstly, "the epimeleia heautou is an attitude
> > towards
> > the self, others, and the world". Would it be accurate to link this, in
> > the
> > history of thought, with "a modification of the preexisting relation
> [of]
> > authority"? Secondly, "being concerned about oneself implies that we
> look
> > away from the outside to [one-self]". Would it be accurate to link the
> > emergence of the 'care of the self' with a "modification of the
> > preexisting
> > relation [of] will"? Thirdly, "the epimeleia also always designates a
> > number of actions exercised on the self by the self, actions by which
> one
> > takes responsibility for oneself and by which one changes, purifies,
> > transforms, and transfigures oneself". Would it be accurate to link
> this
> > with reason (an intellectual action that is "exercised on the self by
> the
> > self")? Therefore in the history of thought are there correlations
> > between
> > the viewpoint of the epimeleia heautou and Foucault's interpretation of
> > how
> > Kant views the 'maturity' of the Enlightenment? I hope this clarifies
> my
> > question.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Teresa
> >
> > On 5/12/08, Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Teresa for giving me the opportunity to read the text again.
> > > Teresa Mayne schreef:
> > > > Foucault in *The Hermeneutics of the Subject,* the translations of
> his
> > > > lectures from the College de France between 1981 – 1982, states that
> > "in
> > > his
> > > > activity of encouraging others to attend to themselves Socrates says
> > > that
> > > > with regard to his fellow citizens his role is that of someone who
> > > awakens
> > > > them. The care of the self will thus be looked upon as the moment
> of
> > > the
> > > > first awakening".
> > > The text says 'Socrate est celui qui veille à ce que les concitoyens
> 'se
> > > soicient d'euxmêmes'. I would translate this as 'Socrates is the one
> who
> > > sees to it that his fellow citizens take care of themselves'. I don't
> > > know which translation you use, but it seems that reading it is a
> > > complete waste of time. Perhaps you should think of better things to
> do
> > > with it like lighting a barbeque or putting a plant on it.
> > > > Does this awakening correspond in any way to the
> > > > awakening of the Enlightenment, which Kant interprets as a way that
> we
> > > can
> > > > free ourselves from the status of immaturity? What I mean is, is
> > > Foucault's
> > > > interpretation of Kant another way of formulating how the 'care of
> the
> > > self'
> > > > can be awakened yet again? And then is the 'first awakening' a
> > > constant,
> > > > unchanging awakening that is reborn again and again at various times
> > > during
> > > > history? I'm thinking of Parmenides here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Foucault goes on to describe the kinds of personal training or askesis
> > > in antiquity. He stresses that for all but Plato taking care of
> oneself
> > > was a constant necessity if one would want to have an accomplished
> life.
> > > This has nothing to do with the period called enlightenment, which is
> > > supposed to be the period when the confidence in the Bible was
> replaced
> > > with confidence in the light of reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejehms> <
> http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejehms>
> > > Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
> > > Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
I think you are definitely on the right track with your questions. There is
no doubt that there is a connection between the sort of "conversion"
(turning around of the soul) that Socrates provokes, and the forms of
"critique" that characterise the Enlightenment. You should look, in
particular, at Foucault's 1978 lecture "What is Critique?" which draws a
line between the "spiritual" exercises of antiquity, the Biblical criticism
of the early Reformation, and Enlightenment, and modern, forms of critique
and resistance to government. For Foucault, Socrates stands at the beginning
of this tradition. In his last course at the College de France (not yet
published) he makes similar connections between the ancient practice of
'parrhesia', especially in its Cynic manifestation, and modern critique.
Timothy O'Leary
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Edwin Ng <edwin.a.c.ng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Teresa,
>
> Have you consulted the *History of Sexuality: The Care of the Self*? I was
> just reading "Part Two: The Cultivation of the Self" when I looked up at
> the
> monitor and saw your email. I think what Foucault discusses there would
> clarify some of your questions. *Epimeleia heautou* involves a certain
> modality of reason and Foucault finds this most pronounced in
> Epictetus' *Discourses:
>
>
> *'Man... must attend to himself: not, however, as a consequence of some
> defect that would put him in a situation of need and make him in this
> respect inferior to the animals, but because the god [Zeus] deemed it
> right
> that he be able to make free use of himself; and it was for this purpose
> that he endowed him with reason. The latter is not to be understood as a
> substitute for natural faculties that might be lacking; on the contrary it
> is the faculty that enables one to use, at the right time and in the right
> way, the other faculties. In fact, it is this absolutely singular faculty
> that is capable of making use of itself, for it is capable of
> "contemplating
> both itself and everything else" By crowning with this reasoning faculty
> all
> that is already given to us by nature, Zeus gave us the possibility and
> the
> duty to take care of ourselves. It is insofar as he is free and reasonable
> that man is the natural being that has been committed to the care of
> himself' (1986, p.47).
>
> I can't comment on the accuracy of your suggestions but it seems to me
> that
> the above might be relevant to your questions. All the best.
>
> Edwin
>
>
> 2008/5/13 Teresa Mayne <teresa.mayne@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > Hi Erik,
> >
> > Thank you for being so direct. I'm probably not explaining myself
> > properly,
> > I have the habit of thinking in questions, so I will try to be more
> clear.
> >
> > I know the difference between fifth century B.C. Greece and the period
> of
> > the Enlightenment. What I'm referring to specifically is Foucault's
> text
> > "What is Enlightenment?". He describes Kant's opinion of the
> > Enlightenment
> > as an 'exit' from the status of 'immaturity'. The 'maturity' that is
> > referred to is "a modification of the preexisting relation linking will,
> > authority, and the use of reason". In "The Hermeneutics of the Subject"
> > Foucault outlines three characteristics of the 'care of the self', the
> > 'epimeleia heautou'. Firstly, "the epimeleia heautou is an attitude
> > towards
> > the self, others, and the world". Would it be accurate to link this, in
> > the
> > history of thought, with "a modification of the preexisting relation
> [of]
> > authority"? Secondly, "being concerned about oneself implies that we
> look
> > away from the outside to [one-self]". Would it be accurate to link the
> > emergence of the 'care of the self' with a "modification of the
> > preexisting
> > relation [of] will"? Thirdly, "the epimeleia also always designates a
> > number of actions exercised on the self by the self, actions by which
> one
> > takes responsibility for oneself and by which one changes, purifies,
> > transforms, and transfigures oneself". Would it be accurate to link
> this
> > with reason (an intellectual action that is "exercised on the self by
> the
> > self")? Therefore in the history of thought are there correlations
> > between
> > the viewpoint of the epimeleia heautou and Foucault's interpretation of
> > how
> > Kant views the 'maturity' of the Enlightenment? I hope this clarifies
> my
> > question.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Teresa
> >
> > On 5/12/08, Erik Hoogcarspel <jehms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Teresa for giving me the opportunity to read the text again.
> > > Teresa Mayne schreef:
> > > > Foucault in *The Hermeneutics of the Subject,* the translations of
> his
> > > > lectures from the College de France between 1981 – 1982, states that
> > "in
> > > his
> > > > activity of encouraging others to attend to themselves Socrates says
> > > that
> > > > with regard to his fellow citizens his role is that of someone who
> > > awakens
> > > > them. The care of the self will thus be looked upon as the moment
> of
> > > the
> > > > first awakening".
> > > The text says 'Socrate est celui qui veille à ce que les concitoyens
> 'se
> > > soicient d'euxmêmes'. I would translate this as 'Socrates is the one
> who
> > > sees to it that his fellow citizens take care of themselves'. I don't
> > > know which translation you use, but it seems that reading it is a
> > > complete waste of time. Perhaps you should think of better things to
> do
> > > with it like lighting a barbeque or putting a plant on it.
> > > > Does this awakening correspond in any way to the
> > > > awakening of the Enlightenment, which Kant interprets as a way that
> we
> > > can
> > > > free ourselves from the status of immaturity? What I mean is, is
> > > Foucault's
> > > > interpretation of Kant another way of formulating how the 'care of
> the
> > > self'
> > > > can be awakened yet again? And then is the 'first awakening' a
> > > constant,
> > > > unchanging awakening that is reborn again and again at various times
> > > during
> > > > history? I'm thinking of Parmenides here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Foucault goes on to describe the kinds of personal training or askesis
> > > in antiquity. He stresses that for all but Plato taking care of
> oneself
> > > was a constant necessity if one would want to have an accomplished
> life.
> > > This has nothing to do with the period called enlightenment, which is
> > > supposed to be the period when the confidence in the Bible was
> replaced
> > > with confidence in the light of reason.
> > >
> > >
> > > Erik
> > >
> > > Info: www.xs4all.nl/~jehms <http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejehms> <
> http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ejehms>
> > > Weblog: http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950
> > > Productie: http://stores.lulu.com/jehmsstudio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>