Rob Schaap on Foucault

Justin Schwartz jkschw at hotmail.com
Tue Jun 12 07:56:25 PDT 2001


Well, I carefully framed by praise of Foucault as a SoK by saying that his stuff was good _if_ it could be empirically suported. The issue about Brandt's example of the compulsive may or may not be uninformed about the mentally ill, that's not the point, but DD doesn't expalin why; however, the counterexample doesn't depend on its psychiatric accuracy. DD is right that Quine sometimes makes Foucauldian noises about logic just being parochial behavior, but when he tries to draw extravagant metphysical conclusions from this, he is subject to the same sort of criticisms that F is. I also said the mistakes F made about the consequences of SoK was very common. --jks


>
>
>--- Justin Schwartz <jkschw at hotmail.com> wrote: >
> > >
>
> > My diss adviser Allan Gibbard offered the following objection to the
>theory
> > put forward by Richard Brandt, that the good is what you'd want after
> > "cognitive psychotherapy," if you knew the relevant facts and removed
> > distorting influences, e.g., an obsessive compulsive wouldn't want to
>wash
> > his hands all the time if he realized that ordinary germs weren't
>harmful.
> > Gibbard said it would be rational to reject cog psychotherapy,
>especially if
> > you knew it was going to effectively change your desires. The obsessive
> > would say: but I wouldn't _want_ to be the sort of person who doesn't
>mine
> > germy hands, eeyeeww! --jks
> >
>
>Hrrrmph. A clearer example of why we need Foucault (ie; to stop us from
>syaing
>fucking stupid things about mental illness like that), one could not ask
>for.
>
>The whole point about Foucault, and the main reason why he can't be
>pigeonholed
>as a "very good sociologist of knowledge" (in fact, he was arguably a *very
>bad* sociologist of knowledge, in the sense of regularly inventing his
>history
>for convenience), is that he takes seriously the fact that propositional
>reasoning of the sort which the Anglo-Saxon philosphers elevate to a higher
>status, is actually a very weird and unusual way for human beings to
>behave. I
>doubt I spend more than twenty minutes out of any given day behaving in
>that
>manner, and I regularly put other people's money at risk, which one might
>have
>thought gave me the incentive to be as "rational" as possible.
>
>In fact, if someone was an obsessive hand-washer, and if they then started
>to
>reason in the way Justin suggests, we'd say that there was something
>utterly
>weird about the way that they related to themselves; something much more
>difficult to understand than simply washing your hands a hundred times a
>day.
>
>In fact, all that Foucault says about truth can be rephrased in terms that
>even
>WVO Quine wouldn't have any problem with; that all logical reasoning (even
>mathematics) is a particular behaviour-pattern of one kind of land-mammal
>on
>the Planet Earth. It's just that Foucault tries to take this important
>truth
>seriously rather than saying it portentously and then going on as if
>nothing
>else had changed. But I suspect that a lot of us "don't want to be the
>kind of
>person who thinks that way", perhaps because we suspect that that kind of
>person is French.
>
>dd
>
>____________________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
>or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list