Regarding F's relationship with analytic philosophy, there are two different
versions of his paper "What is an Author" The one in _Langauge,
Counter-Memory, Practice_ engages quite explicitly with analytic philosophy,
whereas the one in Rabinow's edited volume does not contain these passages.
At least that is how I remember it---again, I apologize that I don't have
either of these references handy, and it has been over eight years since I
read either of them. Does anyone else recall anything about this
discrepancy?
Nate
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Arnold Davidson also had an interesting bit in his introduction to F
> and his Interlocutors about Foucault's scorning of his French
> contemporaries for taking credit for discoveries that had already been
> made by Anglo-American "analytic" philosophers some 20 years
> previously. Strange that there seems to be marginal interest in
> confronting F with a tradition he seemingly respected.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
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
versions of his paper "What is an Author" The one in _Langauge,
Counter-Memory, Practice_ engages quite explicitly with analytic philosophy,
whereas the one in Rabinow's edited volume does not contain these passages.
At least that is how I remember it---again, I apologize that I don't have
either of these references handy, and it has been over eight years since I
read either of them. Does anyone else recall anything about this
discrepancy?
Nate
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> Arnold Davidson also had an interesting bit in his introduction to F
> and his Interlocutors about Foucault's scorning of his French
> contemporaries for taking credit for discoveries that had already been
> made by Anglo-American "analytic" philosophers some 20 years
> previously. Strange that there seems to be marginal interest in
> confronting F with a tradition he seemingly respected.
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Roberts <npr4@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
--
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