2 ms·

> The definition of what is true (and thus what is not) is based on power relations. We're speaking about social and political truths, here, dummy author, the k

by JackFr 6y ago

> The definition of what is true (and thus what is not) is based on power relations. We're speaking about social and political truths, here, dummy author, the kind people actually disagree about, not whether fire is hot or Australia exists I think 'dummy author' has your number. From TFA: "When challenged, the obscurantist will typically retreat to the safe house provided by the trivial interpretation of his claims, only to reoccupy the controversial ground once the critic has left the scene."

coldtea 6y ago
That's not a backtracking to a "trivial interpretation", it's what the quote says. (In fact @fratajcz continuation of Foucault's except in the comment above, makes it extremely clear that he speaks of social truths and their construction). The author makes a strawman that Foucault here implies something else ("objective truth doesn't exist at all even concerning hard facts"), and then triumphantly declares that it doesn't hold, or that Foucault doesn't justify this claim (which he never did). In the meantime, he fails to showcase that his strawman was actually meant by the philosopher, or that the intended meaning is a "safe house" retreat. (Not to mention he fails to see the cases where the "extended" -non trivial- interpretation also holds, e.g. see my answer to parent comment re: history and "facts of the universe"). It's rather the opposite: it's the trivial cases, that Foucault's thesis doesn't apply (of the "fire is hot"/"water is wet" variety, which everybody agrees anyway) - and the more impactful and profound cases (political, social, historical, truth) that it does. The author seems to apply the inverse prioritization (that challenging "fire is hot" would be the profound non-trivial claim, and challenging "abortion is a crime" kind of truths would be a retreat to triviality. That, though, is because he thinks in terms of analytical philosophy. The former were never the truths Foucault cared about or wanted to challenge. Even if it isn't evident from the except, Foucault has written extensively about and was preoccupied with, the social truths, on sexuality, mental health, crime, morality. His subject was never the trivial hard-fact truths of the "fire is hot", "water turns to ice at 0o degrees" kind. The author here pretends as if Foucault "over-extended" to them when speaking about truth, to build his strawman. So no retreat was ever necessary.

by JackFr 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

That's not a backtracking to a "trivial interpretation", it's what the quote says. (In fact @fratajcz continuation of Foucault's except in the comment above, makes it extremely clear that he speaks of social truths and their construction). The author makes a strawman that Foucault here implies something else ("objective truth doesn't exist at all even concerning hard facts"), and then triumphantly declares that it doesn't hold, or that Foucault doesn't justify this claim (which he never did). In the meantime, he fails to showcase that his strawman was actually meant by the philosopher, or that the intended meaning is a "safe house" retreat. (Not to mention he fails to see the cases where the "extended" -non trivial- interpretation also holds, e.g. see my answer to parent comment re: history and "facts of the universe"). It's rather the opposite: it's the trivial cases, that Foucault's thesis doesn't apply (of the "fire is hot"/"water is wet" variety, which everybody agrees anyway) - and the more impactful and profound cases (political, social, historical, truth) that it does. The author seems to apply the inverse prioritization (that challenging "fire is hot" would be the profound non-trivial claim, and challenging "abortion is a crime" kind of truths would be a retreat to triviality. That, though, is because he thinks in terms of analytical philosophy. The former were never the truths Foucault cared about or wanted to challenge. Even if it isn't evident from the except, Foucault has written extensively about and was preoccupied with, the social truths, on sexuality, mental health, crime, morality. His subject was never the trivial hard-fact truths of the "fire is hot", "water turns to ice at 0o degrees" kind. The author here pretends as if Foucault "over-extended" to them when speaking about truth, to build his strawman. So no retreat was ever necessary.