Re: [Foucault-L] Proof check in Order of Things

[alasdair mcmillan <amcmill@xxxxxxxx>]

Very true, the second clause should have been "nature is simply the
representation of beings." And incidentally I would lean toward "is nothing
but" as a translation for "n'est que," rather than "is simply." It's also
interesting that Foucault doesn't choose the very similar pairing from the
title (mots & choses) here, instead goes with mots & êtres.
I should have mentioned as well, the original line is on p.222 of the
Gallimard edition.
-ali.

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Anthony Reynolds
<anthony.reynolds@xxxxxxx>wrote:

> Looks like there is a typo, just not the one you thought:
>
> French: la nature n'est que la représentation des êtres
>
> ends up as
>
> English: nature is simply the representation of words
>
> Being should not have been translated as words here.
>
> Best,
> Anthony
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:47 AM, alasdair mcmillan <amcmill@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alastair,
> > the quotation you provide seems to be correct. the same sentence in the
> > 1966
> > Gallimard edition reads:
> > "Le langage n'est que la répresentation des mots; la nature n'est que la
> > représentation des êtres; le besoin n'est que la représentation du
> besoin."
> > The point being, as I understand it, that felt 'need' - qua object of
> > political economy or the 'science des richesses' - coincides with/is
> > nothing
> > other than its own representation, rather than being a 'representation
> of'
> > something else.
> > hope this sheds a bit of light on the matter.
> > cheers,
> > Ali
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Alasdair McMillan
> > Ph.D II / Graduate Assistant
> > Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies<
> > http://www.yorku.ca/sts/>
> > Institute for Science and Technology Studies <http://ists.news.yorku.ca/
> >
> > Bethune College, York University
> > 4700 Keele St.
> > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
> > Canada
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Alastair Kemp <
> alastair.kemp@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I'm reading The Routledge Classics 2002 first published, 2nd reprint
> for
> > > 2006 copy of Order of Things.
> > >
> > > On page 227, Chapter 6: Exchanging, Section VIII Desire and
> Reproduction,
> > > lines 14-16 it states
> > >
> > > "Language is simply the representation of words; nature is simply the
> > > representation of words; need is simply the representation of need."
> > >
> > > Surely the 'need' in bold is a proof typo? Shouldn't it be 'wealth'?
> > >
> > > Anyone enlighten me?
> > >
> > > all the best
> > >
> > > Alastair Kemp
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Foucault-L mailing list
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foucault-L mailing list
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Liberal Studies
> New York University
> 726 Broadway, Room 637
> New York, New York 10003
> _______________________________________________
> Foucault-L mailing list
>



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alasdair McMillan
Ph.D II / Graduate Assistant
Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies<http://www.yorku.ca/sts/>
Institute for Science and Technology Studies <http://ists.news.yorku.ca/>
Bethune College, York University
4700 Keele St.
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada