What is the main idea of the book? What is the philosophical position of its author? Phenomenology and existentialists criticized Foucault in positivism-whether "positivism concepts" (Dufrenne), "positivism signs" (Sartre) or just positivism as the absolutization of prepared, frozen forms of knowledge (Lebon). Positivists refused to record Foucault in his camp: what is this positivism, if it does not meet the laboratory criteria of genuine scientific? (Boudon). Many critics saw as Foucault's characteristic features phenomenological thinking (Val), e.g. the appearance of being in heideggerian sense (Dufrenne), and even seen in "Words and things" almost not "introduction to the philosophy of life of language" (Paren-Vial). In fact was that episistomy in the concept of Foucault have much more in common with the Kantian a priori structures of cognition, associated with the perspective of the new cognitive experience, rather than with the use linguistic models in levitanivka sense (Domenach, Man-Vial). Sometimes the role of "Words and things" in the justification of modern humanitarian knowledge even directly compared to the role of Kant's "critique of pure reason," in the rationale for the natural Sciences (Kangeyam). Yes,indeed, and structuralism is it? What is Foucault -- "postructuralism", not realizing until the end of the task of structuralism as the modern science of signs and semiotic systems (Val)? Or, perhaps, the "poststructuralist" or "antistructural", long surpassed the structuralist linguisticism and beyond the linguistic methodology (Pettit, white)?
1 comment:
What is the main idea of the book? What is the philosophical position of its author?
Phenomenology and existentialists criticized Foucault in positivism-whether
"positivism concepts" (Dufrenne), "positivism signs" (Sartre) or just
positivism as the absolutization of prepared, frozen forms of knowledge (Lebon).
Positivists refused to record Foucault in his camp: what is this
positivism, if it does not meet the laboratory criteria of genuine
scientific? (Boudon). Many critics saw as Foucault's characteristic features
phenomenological thinking (Val), e.g. the appearance of being in
heideggerian sense (Dufrenne), and even seen in "Words and things" almost
not "introduction to the philosophy of life of language" (Paren-Vial). In fact
was that episistomy in the concept of Foucault have much more
in common with the Kantian a priori structures of cognition, associated with
the perspective of the new cognitive experience, rather than with the use
linguistic models in levitanivka sense (Domenach, Man-Vial).
Sometimes the role of "Words and things" in the justification of modern humanitarian knowledge
even directly compared to the role of Kant's "critique of pure reason," in
the rationale for the natural Sciences (Kangeyam).
Yes,indeed, and structuralism is it? What is Foucault --
"postructuralism", not realizing until the end of the task of structuralism as
the modern science of signs and semiotic systems (Val)? Or, perhaps,
the "poststructuralist" or "antistructural", long surpassed
the structuralist linguisticism and beyond the linguistic
methodology (Pettit, white)?
Post a Comment