A good commentator when substituting terms must makeĬlear the background from which he replaces the author’s term with a Understood by the reader, therefore allowing the reader to see moreĬlearly the premise, argument, and the logical structure of the Those basic terms the commentator substitutes similar terms more easily A philosophicalĬommentary in its most honest form, breaks down the original text toīasic terms first introduced in the text, then only if necessary, from From them I began to see why such apparentlyĪllow me to present to you some of my own assumptions. IĮnded up corresponding with someone who had originally written toĪdvise me to turn down my aggressive tone. Internet mailgroup I subscribe to in hope for additional comments. The night I had finished the paper I posted it on a Foucault Such an obvious observation, to me, in that D&R’s descriptions were More over I didn’t understand how you could not see So easily understand D&R’s interpretation in line with my reading Reading your response, I immediately felt confused as to how you could Strange explanation for the lack of a theory of signification. Irrelevant to Foucault’s original writing which culminated in their Their following description of the Classical man seemed to me vague and It seemed obvious D&R must have been aware the shift, but The episteme of the Renaissance era to the episteme in the ClassicalĪge. However in the page right before, on page 18 ofīeyond S&H, D&R clearly described how Foucault aimed to compare Striking feature was the lack of a description by D&R of theĮpistemological shift. My interpretation was still vastly different from D&R’s. I then read the entireĬhapter of Representation in OT, however I was still confused in that In detail, Iįailed to understand how D&R arrived at their interpretation of manĪs artificer from the original text. Of OT without any quotations or further elaboration. Dreyfus and Rabinow summarized this section When I began reading the OT chapter in D&R’s book,Įverything seemed like a direct translation of the original text exceptįor the page 19 paragraph. Madness and Civilization but only the very beginning of The Order of I should mention that at the time I have read I referred back to the original works for each of the The summaries were clear, concise, and as far as I could see,Īccurate. Previous section D&R provided a straightforward summary of MadnessĪnd Civilization and Birth of the Clinic, two of Foucault’s earlier When I first came across the paragraph in Beyond StructuralismĪnd Hermeneutics I had written about, it struck me as strange. I began referring to Dreyfus and Rabinow’s book as sort ofĪ guide for any confusion I may encounter while reading the Order of Think it is best if I begin by describing why I started writing in theįirst place. Of opaque relations I had previous been either unaware or consciously Have tried hard to lay out in the past week but with great difficulty.įirst I must say thank you for your response, it has opened up a field There’s a dense space of interactions between the two texts I Quite honestly I don’t know where to begin addressing these Have walked myself into a topic much more complex than I had previously However I tried to include as much as I could in a response to my professor's response which I'll post here. Also don't read too much into the original paper, I left out a lot of context and important arguments. Thanks for the recommendations Michael, I just took out the "thought from outside and Michel Foucault as I imagine him" by Foucault and Blanchot, I will check out the other texts when I have a chance.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |