Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"

I suppose I'm somewhat confused by the original question. It seems to me
that if Foucault thought we had a knowable human nature, he would also
think that we would have a firm transcendental grounding on which to base
an empirical knowledge about man, which is precisely what he does not

It also seems to me that even what we call human nature or look for is
going to change based on different knowledge practices, such that the
question can only be answered within given systems of knowledge. Foucault,
after all, for instance, believed that modern medicine presented valid
abstractions against which we could gain usefull knowedges. But I dont'
take this to mean that he believes modern medicine to be "true" in the
absolute sense.

Ed Comstock
College Writing Program
Department of Literature
American University
The easy possibility of letter writing must--seen theoretically--have
brought into the world a terrible dislocation of souls. It is, in fact, an
intercourse with ghosts, and not only with the ghost of the recipient, but
also with one's own ghost... How on earth did anybody get the idea that
people can communicate with each other by letter!--Franz Kafka
  • Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
    • From: Chathan Vemuri
  • Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
    • From: David McInerney
  • Replies
    Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature", Matt Wootton
    Re: [Foucault-L] foucault and "human nature", Thomas Lord
    Partial thread listing: