Chetan, I am afraid I cannot help you with your inquirey (less concerned am I with constituting Foucaults thoughts, feelings and beliefs, as an object of knowledge than in thinking, writing, and working along with him), nor am I interested in answering to the polemics of a critical consciousness of madness which- in a ritual of truth in which ceremony wins over debate- risks all in an absolute combat whose outcome is uncertain, while secretly ensuring its own survival in advance, recognizing its own rationality in the simple fact of acception the risk. But I can suggest developing a rapport with Foucault's early writings on Psychiatry and Psychology (Mental Illness and Psychology, Introduction to Binswanger's Dream and Existence, and History of Madness).
"I think it's important to have a small number of authors with whom one thinks, with whom one works, but on whom one doesn't write."
--- On Fri, 5/3/10, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature"
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: Friday, 5 March, 2010, 6:07 PM
> Jean-Jacques Lecercle identifies
> 'four harmful characteristics' in
> Chomsky's theory of language: methodological
> individualism,
> fetishism, the refusal of history, and naturalism.
> Each of these
> would seem to relate to Chomsky's
> innatism, the defence of which - together with the defence
> of the
> idea of 'free association' - seems to be the raison d'être
> for
> Chomsky's steadfast adherence to theoretical humanism in
> the face of
> Foucault's critique.
>
> It is common to associate theoretical anti-humanism with
> the denial
> of agency or creativity but theoretical humanism could just
> as well
> be said to be the denial of social antagonism or the
> subordination
> of human antagonism within a narrative of the unfolding of
> human
> nature, and the attribution of creativity to a 'human
> essence' rather
> than actual, living, concrete human beings.
>
>
> On 05/03/2010, at 1:44 PM, Mehmet Kentel wrote:
>
> > I guess in the debate with Chomsky he rejects the idea
> of building a
> > philosophy and a political movement around a given
> quality of human
> > nature
> > (that includes, I think, "creativity", which is
> attributed to human
> > nature
> > by Chomsky), but not the human nature itself. I think
> Foucault's
> > position in
> > this regard may be called as agnostic...
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Teresa Mayne
> > <teresa.mayne@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Creativity
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chetan
> Vemuri
> >> <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So this is probably a rather old topic or
> debate that's been tossed
> >> around
> >>> before but does anyone here actually think
> Foucault rejected the
> >>> idea of
> >> a
> >>> "human nature" outright as in universal human
> behaviors? I don't
> >>> think
> >> the
> >>> rejected the latter per say but I do htink he
> rejected the idea of a
> >>> universal human "nature" or "essence" that
> could be discovered with
> >>> knowledge or liberty, a position shared also
> by Nietzsche, Von
> >>> MIses and
> >>> Hannah Arendt.
> >>> what do you guys think?
> >>> And do you think a "critique" or "rejection"
> of human nature as a
> >>> concept
> >>> is
> >>> necessarily as "flawed" as some make it out to
> be?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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"
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
"I think it's important to have a small number of authors with whom one thinks, with whom one works, but on whom one doesn't write."
--- On Fri, 5/3/10, David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: David McInerney <vagabond@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature"
> To: "Mailing-list" <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Received: Friday, 5 March, 2010, 6:07 PM
> Jean-Jacques Lecercle identifies
> 'four harmful characteristics' in
> Chomsky's theory of language: methodological
> individualism,
> fetishism, the refusal of history, and naturalism.
> Each of these
> would seem to relate to Chomsky's
> innatism, the defence of which - together with the defence
> of the
> idea of 'free association' - seems to be the raison d'être
> for
> Chomsky's steadfast adherence to theoretical humanism in
> the face of
> Foucault's critique.
>
> It is common to associate theoretical anti-humanism with
> the denial
> of agency or creativity but theoretical humanism could just
> as well
> be said to be the denial of social antagonism or the
> subordination
> of human antagonism within a narrative of the unfolding of
> human
> nature, and the attribution of creativity to a 'human
> essence' rather
> than actual, living, concrete human beings.
>
>
> On 05/03/2010, at 1:44 PM, Mehmet Kentel wrote:
>
> > I guess in the debate with Chomsky he rejects the idea
> of building a
> > philosophy and a political movement around a given
> quality of human
> > nature
> > (that includes, I think, "creativity", which is
> attributed to human
> > nature
> > by Chomsky), but not the human nature itself. I think
> Foucault's
> > position in
> > this regard may be called as agnostic...
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Teresa Mayne
> > <teresa.mayne@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Creativity
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Chetan
> Vemuri
> >> <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So this is probably a rather old topic or
> debate that's been tossed
> >> around
> >>> before but does anyone here actually think
> Foucault rejected the
> >>> idea of
> >> a
> >>> "human nature" outright as in universal human
> behaviors? I don't
> >>> think
> >> the
> >>> rejected the latter per say but I do htink he
> rejected the idea of a
> >>> universal human "nature" or "essence" that
> could be discovered with
> >>> knowledge or liberty, a position shared also
> by Nietzsche, Von
> >>> MIses and
> >>> Hannah Arendt.
> >>> what do you guys think?
> >>> And do you think a "critique" or "rejection"
> of human nature as a
> >>> concept
> >>> is
> >>> necessarily as "flawed" as some make it out to
> be?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 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"
> >>>
> _______________________________________________
> >>> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Foucault-L mailing list
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>