but of course "having" to answer with something only complicates the
issue further :)
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, <a.e.leeds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
issue further :)
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 1:12 AM, <a.e.leeds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> *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
> _______________________________________________
> 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"