even though the book ultimately defended archaeology, I think alot of its
strong pointed criticisms of Foucault were a bit wrong or missing the point.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I agree. I think I may have misread point 3 when I thought I was
> criticizing it, but yeah, you and I are on the same page.
>
> What do you make of Garry Gutting's book on Foucault's Archaeological
> period? I didn't really like it for some reason. It seemed to be a bit too
> conciliatory to Foucault's critics and made some unfair judgements on
> Foucault's attempts to distance himself from the idea that he was providing
> totalizing generalizations on epistemes in The Order of Things.
> But maybe I'm wrong.
>
> What do you say?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Chetan,
>>
>> I think that your interpretation --if I understand it well-- of the
>> prominenence of Nietzsche at the self-same archeaological level --a level
>> which thus re-inscribes all the events of the modern episteme, and as you
>> say, melts down the differences human/social science-- is not in conflict
>> with my point 3/. What is more, it further reinforces it.
>>
>> And somehow answers your own query on my clarification: yes, Foucault
>> intervenes, and prominently so, in the (interpretation of the) birth of what
>> at the time was going to be the 'post-modern' episteme --regardless of
>> labels. He is a midwife in this birth. He would have been delighted that by
>> know Man would have been dispersed from the 'post-modern mode of being'.
>> Hence the change of emphasis away from the death of God towards the end of
>> man. And largely, the realization of his wish depends on those who work in
>> his wake --this being my point from the outset.
>>
>> 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"
>
--
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"
strong pointed criticisms of Foucault were a bit wrong or missing the point.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> I agree. I think I may have misread point 3 when I thought I was
> criticizing it, but yeah, you and I are on the same page.
>
> What do you make of Garry Gutting's book on Foucault's Archaeological
> period? I didn't really like it for some reason. It seemed to be a bit too
> conciliatory to Foucault's critics and made some unfair judgements on
> Foucault's attempts to distance himself from the idea that he was providing
> totalizing generalizations on epistemes in The Order of Things.
> But maybe I'm wrong.
>
> What do you say?
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:12 PM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Chetan,
>>
>> I think that your interpretation --if I understand it well-- of the
>> prominenence of Nietzsche at the self-same archeaological level --a level
>> which thus re-inscribes all the events of the modern episteme, and as you
>> say, melts down the differences human/social science-- is not in conflict
>> with my point 3/. What is more, it further reinforces it.
>>
>> And somehow answers your own query on my clarification: yes, Foucault
>> intervenes, and prominently so, in the (interpretation of the) birth of what
>> at the time was going to be the 'post-modern' episteme --regardless of
>> labels. He is a midwife in this birth. He would have been delighted that by
>> know Man would have been dispersed from the 'post-modern mode of being'.
>> Hence the change of emphasis away from the death of God towards the end of
>> man. And largely, the realization of his wish depends on those who work in
>> his wake --this being my point from the outset.
>>
>> 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"
>
--
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"