I was looking over the footnotes and there were two that caught my eye. This
message would apply particularly to those who have a copy of the lecture
course at hand.
If anyone can please look at bibliographical footnote 11 for lecture 10,
dated March 15 1978, I'm hoping they may be able to answer a question of
mine.
It says there that while Foucault says in the lecture that most scholars of
the time, even Chemnitz upheld Palazzo's definition of "raison d'etat",
Chemnitz in his own book, a few pages before Foucault's reference from
chemnitz, says he opposes palazzo's definition on the grounds of being too
broad. The footnote ends that Foucault is "therefore justified in saying he
Chemnitz accepts Palazzo's definition in that he's taking a stand on it
outside of the academic debate surrounding the term". Is this supposed to
mean that he is wrong here overall to be using Palazzo's definition and
defending it as such or that he's going off of a more common-place
definition of raison d'etat and does not need to stand by specific academic
debates over the term "raison d'etat? I ask this, because it seems Foucault
bases his initial definition of "raison d'etat" off of Palazzo. I found his
discussion of the term particularly useful and I want to know now whether it
was misguided and wrong to begin with now?
If anyone is lost as to what I'm talking about, go to STP, lecture 10
footnotes, footnote 11.
Thanks
--
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"
message would apply particularly to those who have a copy of the lecture
course at hand.
If anyone can please look at bibliographical footnote 11 for lecture 10,
dated March 15 1978, I'm hoping they may be able to answer a question of
mine.
It says there that while Foucault says in the lecture that most scholars of
the time, even Chemnitz upheld Palazzo's definition of "raison d'etat",
Chemnitz in his own book, a few pages before Foucault's reference from
chemnitz, says he opposes palazzo's definition on the grounds of being too
broad. The footnote ends that Foucault is "therefore justified in saying he
Chemnitz accepts Palazzo's definition in that he's taking a stand on it
outside of the academic debate surrounding the term". Is this supposed to
mean that he is wrong here overall to be using Palazzo's definition and
defending it as such or that he's going off of a more common-place
definition of raison d'etat and does not need to stand by specific academic
debates over the term "raison d'etat? I ask this, because it seems Foucault
bases his initial definition of "raison d'etat" off of Palazzo. I found his
discussion of the term particularly useful and I want to know now whether it
was misguided and wrong to begin with now?
If anyone is lost as to what I'm talking about, go to STP, lecture 10
footnotes, footnote 11.
Thanks
--
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"