Miles Jackson wrote:
> This is distracting us from Foucault's point, though. He's not
> saying "There is no such thing as human nature"; he's saying "Let's
> study the ways in which people construct knowledge about human
> nature and see what roles those forms of knowledge play in
> sustaining power relations". Note that Foucault's point is
> completely orthogonal to any claims about "real" human nature. --
> It's like sociology of religion: we can study the role of
> Catholicism in a society, but whatever we find out is irrevelant to
> the question, "Are Catholic beliefs true?"
In what I quoted, he claims that "all" "forms of scientific consciousness" are "aspects of the will to knowledge," of a "rancorous," "malicious," "murderous" "instinct for knowledge" characterized by "violence" and "the inquisitor's devotion, cruel subtlety, and malice." In conseqeunce, "all knowledge rests upon injustice." Whatever else it is, this does look to be a claim about "human nature."
"all these forms and transformations ['of scientific consciousness'] are aspects of the will to knowledge: instinct, passion, the inquisitor's devotion, cruel subtlety, and malice. It ['historical consciousness'] discovers the violence of a position that sides against those who are happy in their ignorance, against the effective illusions by which humanity protects itself, a position that encourages the dangers of research and delights in disturbing discoveries. The historical analysis of this rancorous will to knowledge reveals that all knowledge rests upon injustice (that there is no right, not even in the act of knowing, to a truth or a foundation for truth) and that the instinct for knowledge is malicious (something murderous opposed to the happiness of mankind)."
Ted
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20061211/baa96ef1/attachment.htm>