Actualy I think Foucault does distinguish between truth and justification
explicitly, except that these clarifications are often in the interviews and
intersections with other professors in Dits et Ecrits and perhaps in a few
lectures.
Its an interesting pattern. Foucault assumes the reader's ability to make a
distinction in his written work whereas in an informal interview, he's much
more refreshingly clear about his intentions, framework, etc.
Thus why I think anyone who wants a good understanding of Foucault needs to
read Dits et Ecrits (the translated excessively abridged version being
"Essential Works of Foucault, 3 vols).
Only by reading that will one have a clear view of Foucault's project.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Kay Fisher <fisherk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think (philosopher and psychologist) Todd May's book "Between Genealogy
> and Epistemology: Psychology, politics and knowledge in the Thought of
> Michel Foucault' (1993) could be helpful here.
>
> He believes that its important to make a distinction between justification
> and truth (something he reckons so-called 'poststructuralist' French thought
> tended not to do). He says that Foucault could be ambiguous on these
> questions but makes the case that his position is not a relativist one re:
> truth. He claims that Foucault takes an antifoundational relation to truth
> but one that allows truth claims to be justified on the basis of
> 'inferential networks' of already existing knowledges (this includes
> justificatory practices). [May further argues that scientific knowledges of
> Western culture tend to have relatively 'tight' inferential networks]. This,
> of course, does not guarantee any absolute truth. Rather it is assumed that
> while everything is open to question, not everything can be questioned at
> the one time (so there always has to be some taken-for-granteds). I think
> this is pretty much consistent with Edward's reading.
>
> May also argues (like others) that since the relativist position affords no
> grounds for truth claims it is self-defeating argument in logic terms.
>
>
>
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:08:48 -0500
> From: Edward Comstock<ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
> To: Mailing-list<foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <
> OF2850DBEE.82182B73-ON852576DE.00108388-852576DE.00114D19@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Right. Similarly, our current physics works as a system of knowledge that
> gives us repeatable results and laws. But this does not mean that we could
> not have a competitive "non-quarky" physics that gives repeatable results
> and laws of a different order. Perhaps, with different cultural
> circumstances, a given non-quarky physics might even be more useful in the
> knowledge it produces. In other words, just because our physics works as
> a system of knowledge does not make it "true" in the absolute sense. But
> at the same time, who cares anymore about finding knowledge that is true
> in the absolute sense?
>
> Of course we also have to distinguish between sciences that have crossed
> the epistemological threshold (like physics and pathological anatomy) and
> those that have not...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
>
> David McInerney
> to:
> Mailing-list
> 03/05/2010 04:26 PM
>
>
> Sent by:
> foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Please respond to Mailing-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/03/2010, at 7:41 AM, Edward Comstock wrote:
>
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> This seems similar to Althusser's attempts to distinguish between
> discourses in terms of the 'adequacy' of their 'grasp' of the
> material world, a rather tricky notion in that idealist discourses
> such as empiricism always attempt to exploit it. I'm not sure how
> one avoids it though, unless one accepts the extreme relativism that
> would assert that the phlogiston theory is equally valid way of
> looking at the generation of heat as thermodynamics. It is clear
> that one gives us a more adequate grasp of material reality, but if
> one attempts to 'go around' discourse to find a way to see whether it
> corresponds to something outside of itself then, whoops, there we are
> back with the 'subject of knowledge' etc etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
> Foucault-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l
>
> End of Foucault-L Digest, Vol 10, Issue 6
> *****************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
explicitly, except that these clarifications are often in the interviews and
intersections with other professors in Dits et Ecrits and perhaps in a few
lectures.
Its an interesting pattern. Foucault assumes the reader's ability to make a
distinction in his written work whereas in an informal interview, he's much
more refreshingly clear about his intentions, framework, etc.
Thus why I think anyone who wants a good understanding of Foucault needs to
read Dits et Ecrits (the translated excessively abridged version being
"Essential Works of Foucault, 3 vols).
Only by reading that will one have a clear view of Foucault's project.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Kay Fisher <fisherk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think (philosopher and psychologist) Todd May's book "Between Genealogy
> and Epistemology: Psychology, politics and knowledge in the Thought of
> Michel Foucault' (1993) could be helpful here.
>
> He believes that its important to make a distinction between justification
> and truth (something he reckons so-called 'poststructuralist' French thought
> tended not to do). He says that Foucault could be ambiguous on these
> questions but makes the case that his position is not a relativist one re:
> truth. He claims that Foucault takes an antifoundational relation to truth
> but one that allows truth claims to be justified on the basis of
> 'inferential networks' of already existing knowledges (this includes
> justificatory practices). [May further argues that scientific knowledges of
> Western culture tend to have relatively 'tight' inferential networks]. This,
> of course, does not guarantee any absolute truth. Rather it is assumed that
> while everything is open to question, not everything can be questioned at
> the one time (so there always has to be some taken-for-granteds). I think
> this is pretty much consistent with Edward's reading.
>
> May also argues (like others) that since the relativist position affords no
> grounds for truth claims it is self-defeating argument in logic terms.
>
>
>
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 22:08:48 -0500
> From: Edward Comstock<ecomst@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
> To: Mailing-list<foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
> <
> OF2850DBEE.82182B73-ON852576DE.00108388-852576DE.00114D19@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Right. Similarly, our current physics works as a system of knowledge that
> gives us repeatable results and laws. But this does not mean that we could
> not have a competitive "non-quarky" physics that gives repeatable results
> and laws of a different order. Perhaps, with different cultural
> circumstances, a given non-quarky physics might even be more useful in the
> knowledge it produces. In other words, just because our physics works as
> a system of knowledge does not make it "true" in the absolute sense. But
> at the same time, who cares anymore about finding knowledge that is true
> in the absolute sense?
>
> Of course we also have to distinguish between sciences that have crossed
> the epistemological threshold (like physics and pathological anatomy) and
> those that have not...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault and "human nature"
>
> David McInerney
> to:
> Mailing-list
> 03/05/2010 04:26 PM
>
>
> Sent by:
> foucault-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Please respond to Mailing-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 06/03/2010, at 7:41 AM, Edward Comstock wrote:
>
>
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> This seems similar to Althusser's attempts to distinguish between
> discourses in terms of the 'adequacy' of their 'grasp' of the
> material world, a rather tricky notion in that idealist discourses
> such as empiricism always attempt to exploit it. I'm not sure how
> one avoids it though, unless one accepts the extreme relativism that
> would assert that the phlogiston theory is equally valid way of
> looking at the generation of heat as thermodynamics. It is clear
> that one gives us a more adequate grasp of material reality, but if
> one attempts to 'go around' discourse to find a way to see whether it
> corresponds to something outside of itself then, whoops, there we are
> back with the 'subject of knowledge' etc etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
> Foucault-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> http://foucault.info/mailman/listinfo/foucault-l
>
> End of Foucault-L Digest, Vol 10, Issue 6
> *****************************************
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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"