I can see what you're saying but I would think that Foucault intends
archaeology to have a Nietzschean goal that supersedes that of traditional
goals of the human/social sciences, while also achieving an alternate
historiography of them as well thus why, to me, he invokes Nietzsche while
working at an archaeological level . But that's just me.
As for your last question, what do you mean detached approach? Are you
saying Foucault did adopt a detached approach or did not?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:34 AM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Chathan for your further insights, to which I would like to add:
>
>
>
>
> 1/ The role of language or discourse in Foucault is , as I understand it,
> much broader than his own link to 20th-century (or modern episteme, to be
> more precise) critical theory. In Foucault, language is co-extensive with
> the plane of immanence.
>
>
>
>
> 2/ To illustrate 1/ and the point made earlier that Foucault -perhaps with
> good god reason- fails
>
> to discriminate between 'problem-solving' vs. critical theory, I shall say
> that Smith Malthus, Ricardo and Marx all belong to the labour analytical of
> finitude -indeed cause of enough controversy among Marxists.
>
>
>
>
> 3/ Is it not suspicious that Foucault singles out Nietzsche (his favourite
> master) to sustain his suspicion of the 'death of man', while throughout his
> book he is working at a fully-fledged archaeological level? Namely, is it
> not more of a legitimate desire on the part of Foucault, a call for those
> who wish to heed it, the disappearance of man, than an upcoming
> archaeological discontitnuity?
>
>
>
>
> 4/ What is more, why should Foucault adopt a detached approach to the
> issues that concerned the age where he belonged?
>
>
>
>
> Ruth Thomas-Pellicer
>
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "After Nietzsche's devastating criticism of those 'last men' who 'invented
> happiness,' I may leave aside altogether the naïve optimism in which science
> -that is, the technique of mastering life which rests upon science- has been
> celebrated as the way to happiness. Who believes in this? -aside from a few
> big children in university chairs or editorial offices." -Max Weber
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
archaeology to have a Nietzschean goal that supersedes that of traditional
goals of the human/social sciences, while also achieving an alternate
historiography of them as well thus why, to me, he invokes Nietzsche while
working at an archaeological level . But that's just me.
As for your last question, what do you mean detached approach? Are you
saying Foucault did adopt a detached approach or did not?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:34 AM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks Chathan for your further insights, to which I would like to add:
>
>
>
>
> 1/ The role of language or discourse in Foucault is , as I understand it,
> much broader than his own link to 20th-century (or modern episteme, to be
> more precise) critical theory. In Foucault, language is co-extensive with
> the plane of immanence.
>
>
>
>
> 2/ To illustrate 1/ and the point made earlier that Foucault -perhaps with
> good god reason- fails
>
> to discriminate between 'problem-solving' vs. critical theory, I shall say
> that Smith Malthus, Ricardo and Marx all belong to the labour analytical of
> finitude -indeed cause of enough controversy among Marxists.
>
>
>
>
> 3/ Is it not suspicious that Foucault singles out Nietzsche (his favourite
> master) to sustain his suspicion of the 'death of man', while throughout his
> book he is working at a fully-fledged archaeological level? Namely, is it
> not more of a legitimate desire on the part of Foucault, a call for those
> who wish to heed it, the disappearance of man, than an upcoming
> archaeological discontitnuity?
>
>
>
>
> 4/ What is more, why should Foucault adopt a detached approach to the
> issues that concerned the age where he belonged?
>
>
>
>
> Ruth Thomas-Pellicer
>
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
> "After Nietzsche's devastating criticism of those 'last men' who 'invented
> happiness,' I may leave aside altogether the naïve optimism in which science
> -that is, the technique of mastering life which rests upon science- has been
> celebrated as the way to happiness. Who believes in this? -aside from a few
> big children in university chairs or editorial offices." -Max Weber
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(515)-418-2771
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"