Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 08:28:53 +0100 From: ccw94-AT-aber.ac.uk (COLIN WIGHT) Subject: Re: more on nasty cyber-nazis Miles, If only things were that simple. One does not purge oneself of ontological commitments simply by not concerning oneself with them. Perhaps, if the claim that such questions are irrelevant is indeed true of a Foucaultian approach then it is tha which I find so troubling. To argue that: >he is primarily a historian noting how discourse is >>embedded in various social contexts, its uses, its effects. All >>this has nothing to do with asking about the role of "the real" >>on our use of language and discourse. Is clearly to invite ontological questions. 'Are the discourses real and how the weave their effects?' is a question that cannot logically be divorced from 'are the objects of discourses real?' on pain of naive solipism. Foucault's unthematised commitment to an empiricist ontology precludes him from ever breaking the boundaries of its grip. To use your own example. The move from discourses of deities to discourses of anything else is clearly to commit a category error (which I admit a Foucaultian analysis does allow). the reality of AIDS is clearly of a different form than the reality of deities. One has to belief in deities in order for the discourses to work their magic. The "magic" of AIDS is completely independent of belief or not in it. To tell me that a Foucautian analysis is not concerned with ontological questions points only to seroius aporia in any Foucaultian analysis. Discourses are of things and why some discourses predominate over others is itself tied, in part, to those things. To threaten someone one does not always need the STICK, but if one really has the STICK the threats, in the form of dicourses work so much better. And it is for precisely this reason that we spend vast sums of money on stockpiling weapons. Again, this is a historical >or sociological question, and it has nothing to do with >philosophical arguments about the relation between language >and reality. Thus, my argument is one cannot do one without taking congnisance of the other. It is simply an illusion to think you are thinking unphilosophically. Thanks, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Colin Wight Department of International Politics University of Wales, Aberystwyth Aberystwyth SY23 3DA --------------------------------------------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005