Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 13:53:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Howard Hastings <hhasting-AT-osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: Cultural studies (Was Henry Miller...)


On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, George Trail wrote:

> >On Fri, 2 Jan 1998, George Trail wrote:
> >> >
> >> >   1. took itself to be NOT innocent of foundational content
> >> >
> 
> When you write 1 above, I read, Takes itself to be "guilty" of a
> foundational content, i.e., admits to having one.  So, of course it isn't
> antifoundationalist. Is there some other way you intended 1?
> g

As I understand it, a foundationalist position would presume a ground
outside language which could be a basis for impartial, objective
knowledge. An anti-foundationalist position would presume that such
a ground is always already partly "constructed." (Or "socially
constructed" as they say nowdays.)

So someone who was an anti-foundationalist would not claim that his
position had no foundation, only that it had no "transcendent" foundation
which guaranteed its objectivity.  I.e., his foundation was not "innocent"
of plitics.  A foundationalist would claim that at least in principle 
objective knowedge was possible.  And this knowledge would be innocent
of politics--classed, gendered, raced, whatever.


hh



     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---