BOEHM You, in fact, has shown that Nietzsche's interpretation of the never is interrupted, and this contituents the very fabric of reality. Moreover, for Nietzsche "explain" the world and "change" it is one and the same. But is it for Marx? In a famous text he contrasts the changing world and its interpretation...
FOUCAULT. Indeed, I expect that I will oppose this phrase. However, if you obratites to political economy, you obnarujit that Marx always treats it as a method of interpretation. A famous text on "explanation" for philosophy, the end of philosophy. But, perhaps, political economy, as understood by Marx, would ask such an interpretation, which, in opposed to philosophical, would not be doomed, because could make in the calculation of the changes of the world and in some sense to interiorservice them.
BEM. Another question: isn't the basic idea of Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud's idea of the self-mystification of consciousness? This not a new idea, appearing only in the XIX century and rising, to me it seems to Hegel?
FOUCAULT. From my side it would be a weakness to say that it's just not the same the problem that I wanted to deliver. I wanted to discuss interpretation as such. Why was visurea to interpretation? Does this the influence of Hegel? One thing is certain: the importance of the sign, or, at least, some a change in the understanding of the importance of confidence in relation to the sign, occurred in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century had many causes. For example, the opening of Philology in the classical sense of the word, creating systematics of Indo-European languages, the fact that classification methods have lost their usefulness, - all this is probably completely transformed our cultural world, the world of signs. Phenomena such as the philosophy of nature in broadest sense - not only in Hegel, but others of his contemporaries and countrymen, testifies about what happened in the culture of the time changes in the order [regime] characters.
BOEHM
ReplyDeleteYou, in fact, has shown that Nietzsche's interpretation of the never
is interrupted, and this contituents the very fabric of reality. Moreover,
for Nietzsche "explain" the world and "change" it is one and the same. But is it
for Marx? In a famous text he contrasts the changing world and its
interpretation...
FOUCAULT.
Indeed, I expect that I will oppose this phrase. However, if
you obratites to political economy, you obnarujit that Marx always
treats it as a method of interpretation. A famous text on "explanation"
for philosophy, the end of philosophy. But, perhaps, political economy,
as understood by Marx, would ask such an interpretation, which, in
opposed to philosophical, would not be doomed, because could make
in the calculation of the changes of the world and in some sense to interiorservice them.
BEM.
Another question: isn't the basic idea of Marx, Nietzsche, and
Freud's idea of the self-mystification of consciousness? This not a new idea,
appearing only in the XIX century and rising, to me it seems to Hegel?
FOUCAULT.
From my side it would be a weakness to say that it's just not the same
the problem that I wanted to deliver. I wanted to discuss interpretation as
such. Why was visurea to interpretation? Does this
the influence of Hegel?
One thing is certain: the importance of the sign, or, at least, some
a change in the understanding of the importance of confidence in relation to the sign,
occurred in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century had many causes.
For example, the opening of Philology in the classical sense of the word, creating
systematics of Indo-European languages, the fact that classification methods
have lost their usefulness, - all this is probably completely transformed our
cultural world, the world of signs. Phenomena such as the philosophy of nature in
broadest sense - not only in Hegel, but others of his contemporaries and
countrymen, testifies about what happened in the culture of the
time changes in the order [regime] characters.