So overall, I think the perspectives given so far on this topic (not
to mention citations) have given me more than enough context with
which to answer the question of correspondence v. coherence theories
of truth, if not actually change the assumptions of the question
entirely. Although I've long recognized Foucault's approach to truth
as quite different from that usually approved by academic analytic
philosophy, I think I can provide a detailed response that might be
able to tackle the elements of the question usually recognized by
analytic philosophers and their students, such as correspondence, etc.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's an interesting way to look at it Clare. For a moment I was
> struggling to grasp his differentiation between parrhesiatic speech
> and performative statements, in that I wondered whether parrhesiatic
> speech might be annexed to the realm of the performative. It did not
> occur to me to think of this differentiation as a philosophicaly
> informed contrast between the approach to truth as found in
> performative statements and the approach found in parrhesiatic speech.
> I thought it was merely a separation of two ways of speaking.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, <c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In relation to Ricky's comments about Fearless Speech
>>
>> I think also of interest here is Chapter 4 of *The Government of Self and
>> Others* where Foucault systematically and clearly distinguishes
>> 'performative statements' from parrhesiastic speech - noting 3 or 4 major
>> points on which they differ.
>>
>> See also this remark from the same set of lectures
>>
>> 'It seems to me that the philosophical choice confronting us today is the
>> following. We have to opt either for a critical philosophy which appears as
>> an analytical philosophy of truth in general, or for a critical thought
>> which takes the form of an ontology of ourselves, of present reality. It is
>> this latter form of philosophy which from Hegel to the Frankfurt School,
>> passing through Nietzsche, Max Weber and so on, which has founded a form of
>> reflection to which, of course, I link myself insofar as I can.'
>>
>> Michel Foucault, (2010) [2008]. *The Government of Self and Others. Lectures
>> at the Collège de France, 1982- 1983. *Tr. Graham Burchell. Houndmills and
>> New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.
>> On 7 April 2011 00:49, ricky <rickydcrano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> >From *Fearless Speech*, MF's lectures at Berkeley in 1983, which I'm
>>> surprised no one's brought up yet:
>>>
>>> (For the sake of this thread, I'm translating the Greek *parrhesia*, which
>>> is the topic of these lectures, as truth-telling, a translation that MF
>>> himself uses more or less throughout the lectures.)
>>>
>>> "Truth-telling is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a
>>> specific
>>> relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life
>>> through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people
>>> through criticism, and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and
>>> duty. More precisely, truth-telling is a verbal activity in which a speaker
>>> expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life becuse he
>>> recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well
>>> as himself). In truth telling, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses
>>> frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the
>>> risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery,
>>> and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy. That then, quite
>>> generally, is the positive meaning of the word *parrhesia*..." (19-20)
>>>
>>> As mentioned above, this doesn't really speak the same language as the
>>> analytics, as truth for Foucault is about so much more than the relation
>>> between statement and "reality" or between series of statements. Truth can
>>> never be dissociated from power and subjectivation, relations of forces.
>>> I'm
>>> not sure the analytics have anything to say on this. Comments above on
>>> Foucault's "historical" or genealogical tack I think make this difference
>>> very clear.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clare
>>> *******************************************
>>> Clare O'Farrell
>>> http://www.michel-foucault.com
>>> *******************************************
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"
>
--
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"
to mention citations) have given me more than enough context with
which to answer the question of correspondence v. coherence theories
of truth, if not actually change the assumptions of the question
entirely. Although I've long recognized Foucault's approach to truth
as quite different from that usually approved by academic analytic
philosophy, I think I can provide a detailed response that might be
able to tackle the elements of the question usually recognized by
analytic philosophers and their students, such as correspondence, etc.
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Chetan Vemuri <aryavartacnsrn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's an interesting way to look at it Clare. For a moment I was
> struggling to grasp his differentiation between parrhesiatic speech
> and performative statements, in that I wondered whether parrhesiatic
> speech might be annexed to the realm of the performative. It did not
> occur to me to think of this differentiation as a philosophicaly
> informed contrast between the approach to truth as found in
> performative statements and the approach found in parrhesiatic speech.
> I thought it was merely a separation of two ways of speaking.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 7:06 PM, <c.ofarrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In relation to Ricky's comments about Fearless Speech
>>
>> I think also of interest here is Chapter 4 of *The Government of Self and
>> Others* where Foucault systematically and clearly distinguishes
>> 'performative statements' from parrhesiastic speech - noting 3 or 4 major
>> points on which they differ.
>>
>> See also this remark from the same set of lectures
>>
>> 'It seems to me that the philosophical choice confronting us today is the
>> following. We have to opt either for a critical philosophy which appears as
>> an analytical philosophy of truth in general, or for a critical thought
>> which takes the form of an ontology of ourselves, of present reality. It is
>> this latter form of philosophy which from Hegel to the Frankfurt School,
>> passing through Nietzsche, Max Weber and so on, which has founded a form of
>> reflection to which, of course, I link myself insofar as I can.'
>>
>> Michel Foucault, (2010) [2008]. *The Government of Self and Others. Lectures
>> at the Collège de France, 1982- 1983. *Tr. Graham Burchell. Houndmills and
>> New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p.
>> On 7 April 2011 00:49, ricky <rickydcrano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> >From *Fearless Speech*, MF's lectures at Berkeley in 1983, which I'm
>>> surprised no one's brought up yet:
>>>
>>> (For the sake of this thread, I'm translating the Greek *parrhesia*, which
>>> is the topic of these lectures, as truth-telling, a translation that MF
>>> himself uses more or less throughout the lectures.)
>>>
>>> "Truth-telling is a kind of verbal activity where the speaker has a
>>> specific
>>> relation to truth through frankness, a certain relationship to his own life
>>> through danger, a certain type of relation to himself or other people
>>> through criticism, and a specific relation to moral law through freedom and
>>> duty. More precisely, truth-telling is a verbal activity in which a speaker
>>> expresses his personal relationship to truth, and risks his life becuse he
>>> recognizes truth-telling as a duty to improve or help other people (as well
>>> as himself). In truth telling, the speaker uses his freedom and chooses
>>> frankness instead of persuasion, truth instead of falsehood or silence, the
>>> risk of death instead of life and security, criticism instead of flattery,
>>> and moral duty instead of self-interest and moral apathy. That then, quite
>>> generally, is the positive meaning of the word *parrhesia*..." (19-20)
>>>
>>> As mentioned above, this doesn't really speak the same language as the
>>> analytics, as truth for Foucault is about so much more than the relation
>>> between statement and "reality" or between series of statements. Truth can
>>> never be dissociated from power and subjectivation, relations of forces.
>>> I'm
>>> not sure the analytics have anything to say on this. Comments above on
>>> Foucault's "historical" or genealogical tack I think make this difference
>>> very clear.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Clare
>>> *******************************************
>>> Clare O'Farrell
>>> http://www.michel-foucault.com
>>> *******************************************
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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"
>
--
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"