Slogan: Think about the text that follows on the basis of the concepts learned Foucualt. There are certain categories of interpretation that you have known recently (for example, the concept of "history") and can test, deploy, further reading of the text using these categories. Then, with the ideas of Nietzsche, Heidegger and Rorty compose a critical text which develops new interpretive ideas from the text. You can make a review from these authors, or perform an array of ideas to enrich the look of Foucault with new perspectives.
print this text and attach it to work. It must rise to the TP blog delivered simultaneously with the paper.
Some questions about "defense of society"
[summary translation of a chapter of Michel Foucault, Résumé des Cours, Collège de France, Paris, 1989]
"To carry out a concrete analysis of power relations seems necessary abandon the juridical model of sovereignty, this model presupposes the individual as a subject of natural rights or powers primitive. Is given by an objective fact that this model accounts for himself the ideal genesis of the state, in short, the law makes fundamental manifestation of power. We should make an attempt to study the power not only from the primitive terms of the power relationship, but from the power relationship itself as it will determine the elements on which state: instead of thinking ideal subjects for which requests have abated something of themselves or their powers to be subject, we should explore how relations of domination alone can build the subjects. Likewise, instead of investigating the unique shape, the central point to which all forms of power arising as a consequence or development, we should address their multiplicity, their differences, their specificity, reversibility, studying, therefore, as relations of power that intersect, excluding each other, converge or otherwise oppose and tend to cancel. In short, instead of considering the law a manifestation of power, we might be more useful to try to discover the different techniques of coercion that puts the law into operation. "
of Nietzsche, genealogy, history. [I]
Genealogy [...] [...] [...] is opposed to meta-historical deployment of ideal significations and indefinite teleology. He opposes the pursuit of "origin." [...]
want to believe in the beginning things were in their perfection, that shining out of the hands of the creator, or light without a shadow of the first dawn. The origin is always before the fall, before the body, before the world and time: on the side of the gods, and the narrating is always sung a theogony. But the historical beginning is low, not in the sense of modest or discreet as the way of the dove, but ridiculous, ironic, suitable to undo all fatuities. [...]
what Nietzsche never ceased to criticize after the second of the Untimely, is this kind of story that reintroduced (and is always) the supra-historical point of view: a story that would be responsible for collecting, into a whole tightly closed in on itself, finally reduced diversity of time, a story that would allow us to recognize everywhere and giving all the way past movements of reconciliation, a story that will launch on all that is behind it a look end of the world. This history of historians seeks a foothold outside of time, seeks to judge everything according to an apocalyptic objectivity, for he has been a true eternal soul never dies, always identical to consciousness itself. If the historical sense be outdone by the view above-historical metaphysics can then resume it at his own, setting it under the form of an objective consciousness, to impose their own "Egyptian." [...]
the body is trapped in a series of schemes that cross, is broken by the rhythms of work, rest and holidays, is poisoned by food or poison, values, food habits, and moral laws all together ; provides resistance [vi]. The story "effective" is distinguished from that of the historians that does not rely on any statements: nothing in the man nor his body is fixed enough to understand other men and recognized them. Anything to which one adheres to turn to the story and capture it in its entirety, all you can retrace as a patient, this continuous movement is systematically destroy it. We must shatter allowing the dildo game surveys.
know, even historical, does not mean "find again" or especially "find." The story will be "effective" in so far as to introduce discontinuity in our very being. Divided our feelings, dramatize our instincts, multiply our body and oppose himself. Do not leave anything under him would have the reassuring stability of life or nature, will not lead to any move towards an end obstinacy millennium. Dig something about what he wants to rest, and rages against his alleged continuity. Knowledge has not been done to understand, has been made to make cuts.
[...] There is a whole tradition of the story (theological or rationalistic) that tends to dissolve the singular event in a perfect continuity linking the teleological movement or natural. The story "effective" revives the event in what may be the single shear. Event-by this it is necessary not understand a decision, a treaty, a kingdom, or battle, but a relationship of forces is reversed, seized power, a vocabulary taken up and turns against its users, a domination that is weak, stretched itself is poisoned same, something else that appears on the scene disguised. Forces in the story do not obey to a destination or a mechanic, but at random in the fight [vii]. [...] Actual history knows only one realm, where there is no ruling or final cause, but only "the iron hand of the need to shake off the Horn of Fortune" [viii]
Finally, last feature of the story effectively. Not afraid to be a knowledge in perspective. Historians seek as far as possible to erase what to betray, in their wisdom, the place from which to watch, when they are in, the match-makers what their passion unattainable. The historical sense, as Nietzsche understands it, is known perspective, and not reject the system of its own injustice. Viewed from an angle with the deliberate purpose of assessing, to say whether or not to follow all the traces of poison, to find the best antidote.
(All material www.heideggeriana.com.ar left)
Michel Foucault: Nietzsche, Genealogy, History and Some Questions on "The Defence of Society" as Foucault Foucault
In the two texts to analyze, Foucault develops several key concepts that continually reappear in his thoughts. Explores mainly about power relations, genealogy, history, the historian and the historical sense. Let's start with the concept of power relations.
On Some Questions about "The Defense of the Company, Foucault provides a critique of traditional subject constitution, taking as central the concept of sovereignty. While this criticism develops, deploys his conception of what he calls power relations, the which is opposed, "by definition" to the constitution of the subject referred to above. That is, according to the concept of sovereignty (at least that takes Foucault) each subject belonging to a society is sovereign and subject to the same time, as it contributes both to create the authority and part of it. That is, each individual gives his will to forge such authority. This is a classic concept of "Rousseau", which in turn is taken up by Hobbes: men, in order to survive, emerge from their state of naturalaza, cediéndolo the state, and thus formed. It is the "social contract" of Rousseau, which constitutes marital status, where, according to more traditional looks, it is the power. However, Foucault shoots about this, claiming that "instead of thinking about subjects ideals to which calls yield something of themselves or their powers to be subject, we should explore how relations of domination can build themselves the subjects. " The subjects are forged from power relations. The power is generated from various relationships, which are second to form global structures. This will reproduce the power relations, which are found in the roots of any society: cross, characterize and constitute the entire social body. For this reason, the subject is not previously established form of society but are the relations of power who determine what shape and as a subject. In addition, relations of power "intersect, excluding each other, converge or otherwise oppose and tend to cancel." Therefore, the power to be related (this contrasts with the traditional Marxist view), is everywhere, is multiple, and crosses the subject in all its forms.
Then we went into the development of the concepts of genealogy and history. Disentangle these concepts is basically impossible, as both Foucault and other philosophers (especially Nietzsche) the place simultaneously, and the interpretation and understanding of one goes along side by side. Foucault's thought is opposed to traditional conceptions of history. Critique its linearity, its progress, its origin, its end, his approach to truth, continuity, wholeness and unity, ie all critical and positivist dialectical interpretations of history. Sets the phenomena of rupture. Introduces the concept of discontinuity, "History will be 'effective' in so far as to introduce discontinuity in our very being." It breaks the linear discontinuous dialectical, ie a metaphysical thought of the story, with a holistic thinking. Here is the family thought. The genealogy is the "dig that about what he wants to rest, and rages against his alleged continuity. Knowledge has not been done to understand, has been made to make cuts.. " Foucault recognizes history as a set of events without purpose or origins, "the story" effective "revives the event in what may be the only one." And success means "a relationship of forces is reversed, seized power, a vocabulary taken up and turns against its users, a domination that is weak, stretched itself is poisoned." Isolated events in history. For Foucault, the genealogical history is composed of elements and compounds different from each other, giving life to the discontinuities that cross the subject. Therefore, genealogy, in a way, is what they perceive the uniqueness of events, thus defeating its purpose well as its origin. The story has no purpose. As he writes in Nietzsche, genealogy, history: "The genealogy [...] [...] is opposed to meta-historical deployment of ideal significations and indefinite teleology. He opposes the pursuit of 'home'. "" Meta-historical deployment "is understood as teleological unfolding, or like I said, as linearity dialectic.
The ever presence of Nietzsche
born From the above, now, the relationship with Friedrich Nietzsche. Although, in some Thus, it has already been exposed, as Foucault's genealogical development takes this thinker. Keep in mind that one's thinking influenced the thinking of the other (in fact, has influenced almost all of Western culture that came after him.)
When Foucault opposes "meta-historical deployment" is opposed to metaphysics, the metaphysical foundations. In Nietzsche that appears in his immortal "God is Dead" killed the unit ideas that explain the reality, the essence died, died metaphysics of history. This is how the world of competing theories that face each other to explain the outside world. Foucault takes up the idea of \u200b\u200bgenealogy Nietzsche to kill the sense of tracing the source: according to him there is no starting point from which we can trace an evolutionary line. Also, both were opposed to the traditional conception of history, which Foucault called global history. He writes: "There is a whole tradition of the story (teleological and rationalist) that has to dissolve the singular event in a perfect continuity teleological movement or natural entanglement." Foucault, following Nietzsche, elaborates the concept of history (which has been previously developed) and the historian. Relativized his position, which, previously, was a condition to understand the truth and that its position was objectively. So what is the truth according to Michel Foucault? It is a "socially constructed fiction," which "has implications of power." Foucault writes: "The truth is an illusion, however, lies in the bowels of the concrete social relations that are relations of power and therefore power." Nietzsche characterizes the truth as a set of metaphors, discourses, all philosophers predecessors he developed his thinking as the embodiment of truth, his critique, then, is that these never recognized "the truth" as what was actually : a set of metaphor. In this way, the truth is built on agreements established socially. Nietzsche writes: "What is the truth? A host of metaphors, metonymy, anthropomorphic, in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, extrapolated and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which, after prolonged use, a town considered firm, canonical and binding, the truths are illusions of which they have forgotten that they are: metaphors that have become worn and weak sensible .... " When you type "truths are illusions," the relativity of truth to which Foucault refers reappears. Shoot
on Heidegger
had previously indicated that Nietzsche is charged with murder, along with many other things, to metaphysics. However, Martin Heidegger is the thinker of modernity (though with him, or even longer with Nietzsche, born postmodernity) that restores metaphysics, which takes their grievances early, returning to the question of being. This is one of the maxims of Heidegger: all metaphysical development, he says, has made the error of asking the agency and not being. From Aristotle to the question of being forgotten. Truth, for Heidegger, it will not by social constructions and metaphors. Truth is the unveiling of being. In order for this to happen, the attitude of being-there, Dasein, must be open and never should maintain an attitude of "conquest and subjugation," which is what characterizes the entity of the twentieth century, which happens to be technique, which searches for and does not ask for the media. This Dasein can stand before the call of being from two positions: either maintaining a pre-ontological position either an ontological or theoretical position. The first refers to the being-of-useful, ie, which maintains a pragmatic attitude. Basically, the majority of humans remain. The other is more the attitude that Dasein must have to understand to be his time (This is necessary to make a split: Heidegger be considered to be as historic, which changes along with the world.) This attitude must be reflective, and that's the attitude we must embody the philosophers that we understand to be and present that understanding to all beings. This is something that runs counter to the thinking of Foucault. According to this, as noted above, the truth "is in the bowels of the concrete social relations" discourses of power that embody the true birth of the relations of power, so that never speaks of a "stripping back" something that appears to us in the clearing from our state, as Heidegger referred. Finally, ask about the origin and the cause is part of Heidegger's thought, which is in contrast to Foucault and Nietzsche, who set the absurdity of seeking the origin of things.
Rorty and the last murderer of metaphysics
Rorty would become the leading critic of the notion of truth as correspondence. This view states that knowledge is made up of representations, both mental and language, and that these are true as correspond with reality. Given this, Rorty says that it is impossible to establish any correspondence between leguaje fragments and fragments of reality because it is impossible to get out of our minds, or in consequence of the language. From here, you come to that knowledge represents the world, and supporting this, Rorty says think of knowledge as a tool for interpreting the world. This position is known as a pragmatist. Says "We must put aside the idea that knowledge is the attempt to represent reality. We should, however, view the inquiry as a way of using reality. " That gives it a practical nature to knowledge, and ends dethroning the essence. He himself defined itself as anti-essentialist; breaks the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic "between" look "and" reality " between essence and substance. By asserting that things just are what they are in terms of its relationship with other things, takes the position of a pan-relationships. The language in the form of connection between objects, thus disassociating its intermediary position between subjects and objects. Humans move in the language and social practices that generate it. And here, to consider the world as a network of descriptions and meanings, we return again to Foucault: truth as a social construction of truth as a form of language, becoming a discourse of power. The truth, then, is "negotiated" with the company from a consensus.
0 comments:
Post a Comment