I do remember them being different in that respect.
On 06/04/2011, at 11:23 PM, Nathaniel Roberts wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
On 06/04/2011, at 11:23 PM, Nathaniel Roberts wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list