![]() I may have made some inadequate formulations. The need for such review is clear to us, for example, when considering the following excerpt: Given this discussion, wanting to know from the author himself how he evaluates his previous positions is natural, and it is in this direction that the question of the subject in Foucault’s body of work refers to a review of previous stages, being raised from the emergence of the perspective of ethics in his thought and towards the attribution of new meanings or clarification. But with the explicit intent of facing Kant’s limitations as he stated: “There are times in life when the question of knowing if one can think differently than one thinks, and perceive differently than one sees, is absolutely necessary if one is to go on looking and reflecting at all” (Foucault, 1984/1998, p. Such citation is typically “Kantian”, the problem of the conditions and possibilities of our world and thinking experiences - naturally, these were always historic for Foucault -, always remembering that Foucault himself chose to follow Kant’s tracks to locate the route of his thought (1984/2004c, p. You mat have changed your point of view, you’ve gone round and round the problem, which is still the same, namely, the relations between the subject, truth, and the constitution of experience. Then you come to see that you’ve really changed relatively little. When you write books like these, you want very much to change what you think entirely and to find yourself at the end of it quite different from what you were at the beginning. I don’t think there is a great difference between these books and the earlier ones. This can be illustrated using Foucault’s own words (1984/2004a): 264, 274), unfolded as a developing problematic that is prone to new perspectives and evaluations. As he stated in 1984 regarding the change of focus on his two most recent books on the history of sexuality, his question was always the relationship between the subject and the truth (1984/2004b, p. In this regard, Foucault’s emphatic defense of an experience of thought that always bears the dynamics of change in itself must be noted, even if later on and considering a permanent or longer lasting issue this is discovered under different prisms or situations. ![]() The question of the subject in Foucault came to prominence with the introduction of questions about ethics in his research, something that caused some perplexity in many of his readers, as if the author was contradicting things he had thought of before. Considering this idea leads us to propose a synthetic exposition of the three steps in the thought of Michel Foucault, to emphasize the importance of the subject question in his ideas and foster a conception of subject that considers Foucault’s body of work. If, on the one hand, the conventional interpretation of a work or thought represents a certain simplification of a more dynamic and plural field, on the other, it may be the possibility of an organization that brings the nexus that usually gets lost in the myriad or richness of issues that unfold from such ideas. The objective of this article is to highlight a problem in the question of the subject in the works of Michel Foucault, from a division that became conventional (being corroborated by the author himself, as will be seen below) and appears in three phases: archeology, genealogy and ethics, and to propose a concept of subject from it that is associated with evaluations of Foucault about his own work found in some interviews.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |