Canguilhem, "The death of man, or exhaustion of the cogito?"

 Qs:

Places where GC discusses/mentions objections to MF (81, 85, 87) – let’s discuss these objections.

• ·        Geology v archaeology (77)
• 
  
• ·        Objection to ruptures (81)
• 
  
• ·        Alternative grids? (85)
• 
  
• ·        How to talk about knowledge without a norm (87)

Norms (78-79) in MF – GC describes MF as more normative as more forward-looking – At the same time Foucault is positioned as not normative (94).

GC’s reading of MF offers too narrow of a perspective – narrowly in not taking up the later work.  Is soc/pol philosophy possible on this picture of Foucault? If so, how could soc/pol theory get into the picture here?

GC also offers a connection to Kant and Hume in the final paragraph (93).  What elements of Kant might be missing?

 

 

D:

Geology connotes the earth/planet/naturalism, or naturalization of culture.  By contrast, archaeology connotes culture.  “Man inhabits a culture, not a planet” (77), says Canguilhem.  But the criticism is that archaeology (read as geology) “naturalizes culture” and does it “by withdrawing [culture] from history” (77).  The critics are representatives of “humanism” and “existentialism” and they accuse Foucault as “positivism” and naturalism.

Canguilhem shares the criticisms but not its reasons – in other words, we shouldn’t naturalize culture but not in order to preserve “humanism” (or the essence of the human), but rather in order to…. [maintain a focus on history?].

The next paragraph GC offers a reason as to how MF left behind naturalism, in the sense of essentialism about nature (e.g., not “liberal naturalism” or “subject naturalism”).

Does GC rely on a divide between culture/planet or culture/nature?  Does the role of history who mediate this better?

“Geology of Morals” (1T Plateaus) on geology in non-evolutionist fashion; observing geological metaphors.

Is Soc/Pol archaeology (in GC’s sense of MF) possible?

If we take normativity to be internal to soc/pol philosophy, then how can we do it given a kind of abnormativ-ism in Foucault.  When soc/pol needs to go beyond mere descriptivism and move into normativism, what can we get out of archaeology?

Does GC offer a ‘futural’ framing of Foucault (as “an explorer”)?  Is that sufficient for normativity?  If we see Foucauldian explorations of the future in terms of problematization does that give us a space of normativity?  What, then, is the relationship between problems and normativity?

[CK: Problematization is necessary for any viable account of normativity, but is not itself sufficient.]

               GC asks whether nknoweldge can be elaborated without reference to some norm?

 

 

 

Plan for next time?

A= 1984 text? / 1974 essay / 1963 BoC chapter

B= 1974 three essays on medicine

We chose A