And I think more fruitful in our conversation, for the kind problems which here are put, would be to consider the idea summatively of consciousness as a theme that emerged in the course of this fundamental changes and not to seek in it the source of interest interpretation.
TOBE. It seems to me that your analysis is incomplete. You do not consider techniques religious exegesis, and they played a crucial role here. In addition, your articulation of history is inaccurate. Despite the fact that you just said it seems to me that the interpretation in the nineteenth century began with Hegel.
FOUCAULT. I wasn't talking about religious interpretation, which is really important because in my very brief story, I was on the side signs, not meanings. As for the gap that occurred in The nineteenth century, it is, of course, can be described by the name of Hegel. But in the history signs, understood very widely, the discovery of Indo-European languages, the disappearance of universal grammar, the substitution of the concept of the body concept nature is no less important phenomenon than Hegelian philosophy. Not mix the history of philosophy and the archaeology of thought.
VATTIMO. If I understand you correctly, Marx should be put on a par with those thinkers who, like Nietzsche, found infinity interpretation. I totally agree with you about Nietzsche. But Marx, I think, still must present destination. What this "basis", if not something that should be considered as a basis?
FOUCAULT. I barely have time razberut your thoughts about Marx, and I'm afraid that now will not be able to prove them. But take, for example, "Eighteenth Brumaire...": Marx never suggests its interpretation as a final. He understands - and he says that always you can find a deeper or more General level of interpretation, and that there is no comprehensive explanation.
And I think more fruitful in our conversation, for the kind
ReplyDeleteproblems which here are put, would be to consider the idea
summatively of consciousness as a theme that emerged in the course of this
fundamental changes and not to seek in it the source of interest
interpretation.
TOBE.
It seems to me that your analysis is incomplete. You do not consider techniques
religious exegesis, and they played a crucial role here. In addition, your
articulation of history is inaccurate. Despite the fact that you just said
it seems to me that the interpretation in the nineteenth century began with Hegel.
FOUCAULT.
I wasn't talking about religious interpretation, which is really important
because in my very brief story, I was on the side
signs, not meanings. As for the gap that occurred in
The nineteenth century, it is, of course, can be described by the name of Hegel. But in the history
signs, understood very widely, the discovery of Indo-European languages,
the disappearance of universal grammar, the substitution of the concept of the body concept
nature is no less important phenomenon than Hegelian philosophy. Not
mix the history of philosophy and the archaeology of thought.
VATTIMO.
If I understand you correctly, Marx should be put on a par with
those thinkers who, like Nietzsche, found infinity
interpretation. I totally agree with you about Nietzsche. But Marx,
I think, still must present destination. What
this "basis", if not something that should be considered as a basis?
FOUCAULT.
I barely have time razberut your thoughts about Marx, and I'm afraid that
now will not be able to prove them. But take, for example, "Eighteenth
Brumaire...": Marx never suggests its interpretation as a
final. He understands - and he says that always
you can find a deeper or more General level of interpretation, and that
there is no comprehensive explanation.