All of the above fully applies to the field of history of science and culture critically its very conception, because it teaches us to abandon all of the proposed modern thinking non-critical patterns of thought, language, action. Historical research shows their nezamorachivayas them the origins and beginning, their specific historical causes, and, consequently, their transient organic sense. It undermines the self-centeredness of a person each specific historical era, showing the possibility and inevitability also other ways of social life, other attitudes, values, and ideals. That is why in our day, the interpretation of the history of culture -- the subject of hot disputes and ideological clashes. Foucault's thesis about the "disappearance" of a man of modern culture implies not naturalistic "death of man" as some critics seem to be mainly subjective, existentialist orientation. We are talking about how, when and in what force circumstances in the history of Western culture the new time was a decisive fracture in the understanding of man, when what circumstances arose the image of man, which we used consider somebodysomewhere. Thus, Foucault "subverts" or, more precisely, it says "Naturhotel" with humanistic pedestal a culture not from the point of view of abstract human nature, but from the standpoint of episteme, the social and the cognitive structure in which it is located and which takes this image of man. So worthy of criticism is presented here does not this very statement -- it is consistent with the real and the objective state of Affairs in the modern bourgeois culture, - but something it is quite another. Stating the "death of man" Foucault never says a word about what can or must be that new unconventional people whose appearance foreshadowed in the pages of his books as clearly, as the disappearance of the traditional man. The lack of Foucault is that he stops on this critical effort and knowledge does the following, obviously necessary,step -- offers no positive social prognosis.
1 comment:
All of the above
fully applies to the field of history of science and culture critically
its very conception, because it teaches us to abandon all of the proposed
modern thinking non-critical patterns of thought, language, action.
Historical research shows their nezamorachivayas them
the origins and beginning, their specific historical causes, and, consequently, their
transient organic sense. It undermines the self-centeredness of a person each
specific historical era, showing the possibility and inevitability also
other ways of social life, other attitudes, values, and ideals.
That is why in our day, the interpretation of the history of culture -- the subject of hot
disputes and ideological clashes.
Foucault's thesis about the "disappearance" of a man of modern culture
implies not naturalistic "death of man" as
some critics seem to be mainly subjective,
existentialist orientation. We are talking about how, when and in what force
circumstances in the history of Western culture the new
time was a decisive fracture in the understanding of man, when
what circumstances arose the image of man, which we used
consider somebodysomewhere. Thus, Foucault "subverts"
or, more precisely, it says "Naturhotel" with
humanistic pedestal a culture not from the point of view of abstract
human nature, but from the standpoint of episteme, the social and
the cognitive structure in which it is located and which takes
this image of man. So worthy of criticism is presented here
does not this very statement -- it is consistent with the real and
the objective state of Affairs in the modern bourgeois culture, - but something
it is quite another. Stating the "death of man" Foucault never says a word about
what can or must be that new unconventional people
whose appearance foreshadowed in the pages of his books as
clearly, as the disappearance of the traditional man. The lack of
Foucault is that he stops on this critical effort and knowledge
does the following, obviously necessary,step -- offers no
positive social prognosis.
Post a Comment