"Historical Ontology" refers to the history of what there is (not in terms
of being but of things that are there), the history of the contextual origin
of concepts, roughly speaking. This term was used by Ian Hacking for sure
(its the title of one of his books, and illustrates what Foucault was doing
as well.
"Ontological History" probably refers to the history of "being" or maybe
even how we perceive of our "being"?
I'm probably wrong on the latter, but I'm pretty sure about the former.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Dear listers,
>
> I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between
> “ontological history” and “historical ontology.” Are these terms simply
> synonymous, or is there a clear difference between them?
>
> I know Foucault mostly uses the phrase "historical ontology of ourselves"
> but in some of the lectures at Berkely he also uses "ontological history of
> ourselves." is the latter simply the result of the French way of saying
> things being transposed into English (ontologie historique de nous-mêmes),
> or is Foucault uses these two phrases interchangably?
>
> I’ve tried goggling, but haven’t got much further that realising that the
> former term has been associated with Heidegger, Merleu-Ponty, and the like,
> and that latter is associated with Foucault, Hacking, etc., but I have come
> across no discussion of the similarities or differences between two phrases.
>
> Is the difference that whereas “ontological history” deals with the “being
> of history,” “historical ontology” addresses the “history of being”?
>
> Any help with this – explanation, description, being pointed in the right
> direction, references, etc. – would be most warmly received.
>
> Kind regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"
of being but of things that are there), the history of the contextual origin
of concepts, roughly speaking. This term was used by Ian Hacking for sure
(its the title of one of his books, and illustrates what Foucault was doing
as well.
"Ontological History" probably refers to the history of "being" or maybe
even how we perceive of our "being"?
I'm probably wrong on the latter, but I'm pretty sure about the former.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Kevin Turner <kevin.turner@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Dear listers,
>
> I was wondering if someone could explain to me the difference between
> “ontological history” and “historical ontology.” Are these terms simply
> synonymous, or is there a clear difference between them?
>
> I know Foucault mostly uses the phrase "historical ontology of ourselves"
> but in some of the lectures at Berkely he also uses "ontological history of
> ourselves." is the latter simply the result of the French way of saying
> things being transposed into English (ontologie historique de nous-mêmes),
> or is Foucault uses these two phrases interchangably?
>
> I’ve tried goggling, but haven’t got much further that realising that the
> former term has been associated with Heidegger, Merleu-Ponty, and the like,
> and that latter is associated with Foucault, Hacking, etc., but I have come
> across no discussion of the similarities or differences between two phrases.
>
> Is the difference that whereas “ontological history” deals with the “being
> of history,” “historical ontology” addresses the “history of being”?
>
> Any help with this – explanation, description, being pointed in the right
> direction, references, etc. – would be most warmly received.
>
> Kind regards,
> Kevin.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
--
Chetan Vemuri
West Des Moines, IA
aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
(319)-512-9318
"You say you want a Revolution! Well you know, we all want to change the
world"