[eDebate] in defense of the sharp on structuralism

Old Strega oldstrega
Tue Jun 30 00:49:44 CDT 2009


combining your quotation where foucault claims he has been mistakenly labeled a structuralist and the quotation below, i agree with sharp about foucault changing his positions throughout his career sometimes reversing his previous position.   inconsistency is not a bad thing unless one is a logician and even then.  this is one example.  your commentary on the sharp video has the stench of "word games".   structuralism like positivism is perhaps indefinable despite your simple definitions.    
A really useful 1967 interview 'La philosophie structuraliste permet de
diagnistiquer ce qu'est <<aujourd'hui>>' (Dits et ecrits, Vol I, pp.
580-4)discusses some of these points. I don't think this is available in
English, but happy to stand corrected.

A rough translation of a key quotation:

"What I have tried to do, is to introduce the analyses of a structuralist
style into those areas where they haven't penetrated until now, that is to say into the domain of the history of ideas, the history of connaissances,the history of theory. In this way, I have been brought to analyse in terms of structure the birth of structuralism itself" (DE I, 583)

you oversimplify everything i've seen you say.  good luck making that quote into a totally 100% consistent foucault.   and lastly as i goodbye, FUCK YOU LIL PRICK.   
_________________________________________________________________
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090630/9c5ad151/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list