I'm familiar with Hacking. I was thinking more in terms of mainstream
analytic thought, such as Davidson, Sellars, Russell, Ryle. I feel
that my friend was dictating the the terms of the debate too much in
terms of what is meant by "truth" and what one means by the
"construction" of such, forcing a sort of relativistic light on my
arguments despite my protestations to the contrary. Apart from Prado,
I'm looking for some solid engagements with the analytic tradition
that I feel can help articulate my responses more clearly, especially
in terms of these two theories of truth. I would think, given all that
has been written in the Foucault literature, that this debate would
become a bit irrelevant, but for some students of analytic thought, it
still goes on.
But thanks for the reference anyway.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tim Rackett <timrackett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Chetan I think Ian Hacking's 'style of reasoning' can help you-although hailing from an analytic tradition Hacking has great insight into the 'positivism' qua historical ontology of MF
>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:53:50 -0700
>> From: ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence theory
>>
>> Hi Chetan,
>> To the extent that we can understand Focuault's major works (at least until OT) as exploring the historical conditions of the possibility
>> of certain discourses, practices, etc, his inquiry is more about "meaning" and hence more fundamental (prior) to the question of truth. We can raise
>>
>> the question of truth only about statements which are meaningful (the statements we understand). Although, admittedly the question of truth can be raised not just about a single or groups of statements, but also about an entire episteme, in which case I think, both coherence and reference has a role to play, but I don't think Foucault ever worried about such questions himself.
>>
>> Ali
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence theory
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I was talking with a friend who is a grad student in analytic
>> philosophy and we were debating about the issue of "truth" in both
>> analytic and continental traditions. In the course of it, we came to a
>> discussion of the merits of the correspondence theory of truth versus
>> the coherence theory of truth. The former argues for the veracity of a
>> statement to be tied to its referent empirical reality and how well it
>> "describes" or "corresponds" to it (straightforward "truth"). The
>> latter tying veracity to a statement's relationship to other
>> connecting statements. Where exactly would Foucault fit between these
>> two theories? Going by the Archaeology of Knowledge, I would say he
>> criscrosses the divide (though more accurately he could be described
>> as being Nietzschean about truth). But are there any analytically or
>> partly analytically trained people on here that might provide their
>> own views?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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"
analytic thought, such as Davidson, Sellars, Russell, Ryle. I feel
that my friend was dictating the the terms of the debate too much in
terms of what is meant by "truth" and what one means by the
"construction" of such, forcing a sort of relativistic light on my
arguments despite my protestations to the contrary. Apart from Prado,
I'm looking for some solid engagements with the analytic tradition
that I feel can help articulate my responses more clearly, especially
in terms of these two theories of truth. I would think, given all that
has been written in the Foucault literature, that this debate would
become a bit irrelevant, but for some students of analytic thought, it
still goes on.
But thanks for the reference anyway.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Tim Rackett <timrackett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Chetan I think Ian Hacking's 'style of reasoning' can help you-although hailing from an analytic tradition Hacking has great insight into the 'positivism' qua historical ontology of MF
>
>> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 20:53:50 -0700
>> From: ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence theory
>>
>> Hi Chetan,
>> To the extent that we can understand Focuault's major works (at least until OT) as exploring the historical conditions of the possibility
>> of certain discourses, practices, etc, his inquiry is more about "meaning" and hence more fundamental (prior) to the question of truth. We can raise
>>
>> the question of truth only about statements which are meaningful (the statements we understand). Although, admittedly the question of truth can be raised not just about a single or groups of statements, but also about an entire episteme, in which case I think, both coherence and reference has a role to play, but I don't think Foucault ever worried about such questions himself.
>>
>> Ali
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: Mailing-list <foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2011 11:28 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence theory
>>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I was talking with a friend who is a grad student in analytic
>> philosophy and we were debating about the issue of "truth" in both
>> analytic and continental traditions. In the course of it, we came to a
>> discussion of the merits of the correspondence theory of truth versus
>> the coherence theory of truth. The former argues for the veracity of a
>> statement to be tied to its referent empirical reality and how well it
>> "describes" or "corresponds" to it (straightforward "truth"). The
>> latter tying veracity to a statement's relationship to other
>> connecting statements. Where exactly would Foucault fit between these
>> two theories? Going by the Archaeology of Knowledge, I would say he
>> criscrosses the divide (though more accurately he could be described
>> as being Nietzschean about truth). But are there any analytically or
>> partly analytically trained people on here that might provide their
>> own views?
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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"