*The* place to look right now is probably /A Thing of This World/ by Lee
Braver. It is an analytic attempt to reconstruct the history of continental
philosophy.
I would imagine that Hacking would likely have something a propos, though.
I also know that there is a grad student at Chicago working on Foucault and
Brandom.
The shortest answer though is that correspondence vs. coherence is the wrong
set of terms. Most will place Foucault as a neo-Kantian of some sort, and
Kantian positions are attempts precisely to sidestep this dilemma. See Marc
Djaballah's book on Foucault and Kant.
In a pinch, though, if you *have* to answer in those terms, go with
"coherence theory".
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Tim Rackett <timrackett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What about Nelson Goodman's irrealism and worldmaking?
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:21:30 -0500
> > From: aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence
> theory
> >
> > 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"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Adam E. Leeds
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of Pennsylvania, and
Visiting Researcher
Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR)
Москва: +7-985-929-33-40
US: 914.980.2970
leeds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Braver. It is an analytic attempt to reconstruct the history of continental
philosophy.
I would imagine that Hacking would likely have something a propos, though.
I also know that there is a grad student at Chicago working on Foucault and
Brandom.
The shortest answer though is that correspondence vs. coherence is the wrong
set of terms. Most will place Foucault as a neo-Kantian of some sort, and
Kantian positions are attempts precisely to sidestep this dilemma. See Marc
Djaballah's book on Foucault and Kant.
In a pinch, though, if you *have* to answer in those terms, go with
"coherence theory".
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Tim Rackett <timrackett@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> What about Nelson Goodman's irrealism and worldmaking?
>
> > Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 23:21:30 -0500
> > From: aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx
> > To: foucault-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Foucault-L] Foucault, correspondence theory vs coherence
> theory
> >
> > 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"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>
--
Adam E. Leeds
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Anthropology
University of Pennsylvania, and
Visiting Researcher
Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR)
Москва: +7-985-929-33-40
US: 914.980.2970
leeds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx