Another thing to keep in mind is that in Order of Things, Foucault was not
addressing truth in general, but only truth within the realm of the human
sciences (linguistics, economics, etc., and their predecessors). He
specifically says in the introduction that his argument does not apply to
sciences such as physics (what I take to mean Kuhnian normal sciences). And
as either J. Fabian or Arnold Davidson (sorry I can't remember who it was)
argues in one of the introductions to the series of collected writings put
together by Paul Rabinow (or maybe it was in Davidson, ed, _Foucault and His
Interlocutors_), Foucault was not the irrealist about truth that many of his
critics, and some of his fans, make him out to be. He was, on the contrary,
perfectly ready to take many "would be purveryors of truth at their word."
F's interest, as he somewhere wrote, was in the relation *between*
knowledge and power, not in equating the two. The very notion of a relation
implies that neither is reducible to the other.
Nate
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:13 AM, 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
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity
Herman-Föge-Weg 11
37073 Göttingen
Germany
+49 (0) 551-4956-0
addressing truth in general, but only truth within the realm of the human
sciences (linguistics, economics, etc., and their predecessors). He
specifically says in the introduction that his argument does not apply to
sciences such as physics (what I take to mean Kuhnian normal sciences). And
as either J. Fabian or Arnold Davidson (sorry I can't remember who it was)
argues in one of the introductions to the series of collected writings put
together by Paul Rabinow (or maybe it was in Davidson, ed, _Foucault and His
Interlocutors_), Foucault was not the irrealist about truth that many of his
critics, and some of his fans, make him out to be. He was, on the contrary,
perfectly ready to take many "would be purveryors of truth at their word."
F's interest, as he somewhere wrote, was in the relation *between*
knowledge and power, not in equating the two. The very notion of a relation
implies that neither is reducible to the other.
Nate
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:13 AM, 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
>
--
Nathaniel Roberts
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity
Herman-Föge-Weg 11
37073 Göttingen
Germany
+49 (0) 551-4956-0