Hey guys
my main question centers around the contention brought up by Spark Notes
analysis of the Archaeology of Knowledge (Spark Notes being an easy reading
guide company for various works of literature and philosophy):
("Foucault frequently claims Kant as the reason why his method can truly be
called 'analytic.' Kant revised how we think about thinking by showing that
thought operates through a set of categories. Foucault's archeology further
revises our ideas about knowledge, this time by showing how knowledge takes
shape as an effect of discourse. Thus, knowledge is shifted from its place
as the ultimate aim of discourse to a possible effect within the field of
discourse: knowledge is 'that of which one can speak in a discursive
practice.'
Such a formulation is both extremely liberating and extremely problematic
for the study of history. It has been the catalyst for a massive body of
revisionist writing that seeks to challenge what we take to be true by
showing that truth to be contingent on a historical discourse; but it has
also been the major focus for critics of Foucault's early work. The basic
criticism asks of Foucault's method how it can simultaneously show knowledge
to be contingent and claim somehow to separate its own claims from that
contingency. Foucault will address this problem briefly in his Conclusion."
" - Spark Notes)
However, I disagree with the notion that it is extremely problemeatic for
undersanding history because Foucault specifically says that he is not
upholding a distinct, isolated set of rules or agenda for analyzing
historical discourse but is simply going by a process of "see what we get",
in that we engage in a discursive uncovering based on each body of knowledge
we go to, and uncover the rules based on our analysis. Or, to be more clear,
that the rules of difference in that knowledge become apparent with
analysis, rather than being something pre-suppose of that body of knowledge.
He even says in the conclusion that his discourse is not necessarily
permanent and could disappear with his advocacy.
But I don't know if I"m right.
Do you know of any way to refute the criticism of Spark Notes, with regards
to the method of archaeology and the last chapter of the Archaeology of
Knowledge?
What are your thoughts on archaeology as a method.
--
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"
my main question centers around the contention brought up by Spark Notes
analysis of the Archaeology of Knowledge (Spark Notes being an easy reading
guide company for various works of literature and philosophy):
("Foucault frequently claims Kant as the reason why his method can truly be
called 'analytic.' Kant revised how we think about thinking by showing that
thought operates through a set of categories. Foucault's archeology further
revises our ideas about knowledge, this time by showing how knowledge takes
shape as an effect of discourse. Thus, knowledge is shifted from its place
as the ultimate aim of discourse to a possible effect within the field of
discourse: knowledge is 'that of which one can speak in a discursive
practice.'
Such a formulation is both extremely liberating and extremely problematic
for the study of history. It has been the catalyst for a massive body of
revisionist writing that seeks to challenge what we take to be true by
showing that truth to be contingent on a historical discourse; but it has
also been the major focus for critics of Foucault's early work. The basic
criticism asks of Foucault's method how it can simultaneously show knowledge
to be contingent and claim somehow to separate its own claims from that
contingency. Foucault will address this problem briefly in his Conclusion."
" - Spark Notes)
However, I disagree with the notion that it is extremely problemeatic for
undersanding history because Foucault specifically says that he is not
upholding a distinct, isolated set of rules or agenda for analyzing
historical discourse but is simply going by a process of "see what we get",
in that we engage in a discursive uncovering based on each body of knowledge
we go to, and uncover the rules based on our analysis. Or, to be more clear,
that the rules of difference in that knowledge become apparent with
analysis, rather than being something pre-suppose of that body of knowledge.
He even says in the conclusion that his discourse is not necessarily
permanent and could disappear with his advocacy.
But I don't know if I"m right.
Do you know of any way to refute the criticism of Spark Notes, with regards
to the method of archaeology and the last chapter of the Archaeology of
Knowledge?
What are your thoughts on archaeology as a method.
--
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"