I see what you're saying and I agree with you fully.
You provided what I needed most, a reason to validate my own views without
having to agree with that of a critic who is a supposed 'expert'. I have
often feared that my reading may not be valid as it may contradict that of
experts in the field but I am at least glad to know that I don't have to
follow Gutting's interpretation by rote.
But last question, how do you assess The Order of Things overall, after all
our discussions (which don't really show that much disagreement). How do you
value it as a work of history and as a work of philosophy? Do you find it to
be historically valid and powerful even today? Do you find it as vigorously
philosophically relevant today despite some people suggesting that its dated
and marginal to Foucault's corpus?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:05 AM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Namely, the fine print whether you --or me or for that matter anybody
> else-- is in favor or against a critic's position on -in this case--
> Foucault's position is of lateral relevance -which is not the same as saying
> you can't express your views. I am glad you do: I learn a great deal from
> them.
>
> What matters is that you have a specific idea of Gutting's position as you
> have come of age "intellectually" and see the world through your own eyes.
> Also because of this latter reason, you are bound to disagree with Gutting
> and myself --including the fact that we may read questions differently and
> answer them accordingly.
>
>
>
>
> I don't think this is reading Foucault against the grain: above or along
> with his 'scientific' legacy, I find this Foucaudian reading of
> Enlightenment one of the most insightful ones. I wish it were more broadly
> applied throughout the educational system. It further helps you be in peace
> with the world with no need to agree with everybody on every statement or
> deny your own entity because of what you have come to believe.
>
>
>
>
> Hope this elaboration helps,
>
>
>
>
> 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"
You provided what I needed most, a reason to validate my own views without
having to agree with that of a critic who is a supposed 'expert'. I have
often feared that my reading may not be valid as it may contradict that of
experts in the field but I am at least glad to know that I don't have to
follow Gutting's interpretation by rote.
But last question, how do you assess The Order of Things overall, after all
our discussions (which don't really show that much disagreement). How do you
value it as a work of history and as a work of philosophy? Do you find it to
be historically valid and powerful even today? Do you find it as vigorously
philosophically relevant today despite some people suggesting that its dated
and marginal to Foucault's corpus?
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 7:05 AM, <R.Thomas-Pellicer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Namely, the fine print whether you --or me or for that matter anybody
> else-- is in favor or against a critic's position on -in this case--
> Foucault's position is of lateral relevance -which is not the same as saying
> you can't express your views. I am glad you do: I learn a great deal from
> them.
>
> What matters is that you have a specific idea of Gutting's position as you
> have come of age "intellectually" and see the world through your own eyes.
> Also because of this latter reason, you are bound to disagree with Gutting
> and myself --including the fact that we may read questions differently and
> answer them accordingly.
>
>
>
>
> I don't think this is reading Foucault against the grain: above or along
> with his 'scientific' legacy, I find this Foucaudian reading of
> Enlightenment one of the most insightful ones. I wish it were more broadly
> applied throughout the educational system. It further helps you be in peace
> with the world with no need to agree with everybody on every statement or
> deny your own entity because of what you have come to believe.
>
>
>
>
> Hope this elaboration helps,
>
>
>
>
> 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"