Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:00:07 +1000 From: Jill Molan <Jill.Molan-AT-uts.edu.au> Subject: Re: foucault on polemics This is a multi-part message in MIME format. Thank you Celia for reminding us of this regards Jill celia guichal wrote: > A fragment in > Michel Foucault, "Discourse and truth: the problematization of parrhesia." > (six lectures given at the University of California at Berkeley, Oct-Nov. > 1983; ed. by Joseph Pearson in 1985. > > ... > P.R. Why is it that you dont engage in polemics ? > > M.F. I like discussions, and when I am asked questions, I try to answer > them. Its true that I dont like to get involved in polemics. If I open a > book and see that the author is accusing an adversary of infantile leftism > I shut it again right away. Thats not my way of doing things; I dont > belong to the world of people who do things that way. I insist on this > difference as something essential: a whole morality is at stake, the one > that concerns the search for truth and the relation to the other. > > In the serious play of questions and answers, in the work of reciprocal > elucidation, the rights of each person are in some sense immanent in the > discussion. They depend only on the dialogue situation. The person asking > the questions is merely exercising the right that has been given him: to > remain unconvinced, to perceive a contradiction, to require more > information, to emphasize different postulates, to point out faulty > reasoning, and so on. As for the person answering the questions, he too > exercises a right that does not go beyond the discussion itself; by the > logic of his own discourse, he is tied to what he has said earlier, and by > the acceptance of dialogue he is tied to the questioning of other. Questions > and answers depend on a gamea game that is at once pleasant and > difficultin which each of the two partners takes pains to use only the > rights given him by the other and by the accepted form of dialogue. > > The polemicist , on the other hand, proceeds encased in privileges that > he possesses in advance and will never agree to question. On principle, he > possesses rights authorizing him to wage war and making that struggle a just > undertaking; the person he confronts is not a partner in search for the > truth but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong, who is armful, and whose very > existence constitutes a threat. For him, then the game consists not of > recognizing this person as a subject having the right to speak but of > abolishing him as interlocutor, from any possible dialogue; and his final > objective will be not to come as close as possible to a difficult truth but > to bring about the triumph of the just cause he has been manifestly > upholding from the beginning. The polemicist relies on a legitimacy that his > adversary is by definition denied. > > Perhaps, someday, a long history will have to be written of polemics, > polemics as a parasitic figure on discussion and an obstacle to the search > for the truth. > > >From: Patrick Crosby <pcrosby-AT-ieee.org> > >Reply-To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > >To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu > >Subject: Re: if -- And > >Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 09:39:47 -0700 > > > Glen, > Come on dude, this is all a bunch of bullcrap and you know it. Plato's > texts, like all texts, stand on their own. Your claim "to have known Plato > the person" is laughable. I've been subscribed to a number of lists, but > I've never seen such psyco-babble in all my life. Some of you are even worse > than the Ayn Rand followers, and they're some of the dumbest people on the > planet. The reason why you and a large number of other people are doing what > you do is obvious: it's all you can do. And the reason it's all you can do > is because you haven't yet educated yourselves to the point that you can > read and understand the texts involved, and comment upon them intelligently. > In essence, what a number of you are saying is this: "Well, maybe I can't > understand the text, but I can understand that the author liked to have sex > just like I do! And that the author pissed and crapped just like I do! I can > talk about all of that with authority! Nobody can put out crap any better > than I can!" > Well, it was fun making light of you pseudo-intellectual morons for a while, > but the novelty of it has worn off. In fact, I now find it disturbing to see > that ability of so many people to think in this "post modern" era has eroded > to such an extent. Go buy yourselves some Foucault love-dolls and have your > fun. I want nothing further to do with this silliness. > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Part 1.2Type: message/rfc822 name="Jill.Molan.vcf" Content-Description: Card for Jill Molan filename="Jill.Molan.vcf" begin:vcard n:Jill;Molan tel;home:4283 2581 x-mozilla-html:FALSE adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:Jill.Molan-AT-uts.edu.au x-mozilla-cpt:;1 fn:Molan Jill end:vcard
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005