3 ms·
To me it seems like this is the trouble: for you, reading Foucault, it is clear what is meant by truth and that the word is constrained to a narrow scope. But t
by yboris 6y ago
To me it seems like this is the trouble: for you, reading Foucault, it is clear what is meant by truth and that the word is constrained to a narrow scope. But to others, including me, it is not at all clear how far the scope goes.
So if the defense of this ambiguity is to require everyone to read several books by the author first, I find it unacceptable.
Without clarity, people can think they agree, while they disagree. Similarly, they might think they disagree, when in fact they agree. I have a hard time comprehending why so many people defend vague language.
- kar5pt 6y agoI think you can criticize Foucault to a point for being unclear sometimes, but you have to remember that sentence was taken out of context. Words get meaning from their context, so I don't think it's fair to expect every sentence a philosopher has written to make perfect sense on it's own without reading the surrounding essay/book.
- coldtea 6y ago>To me it seems like this is the trouble: for you, reading Foucault, it is clear what is meant by truth and that the word is constrained to a narrow scope. But to others, including me, it is not at all clear how far the scope goes. Well, why would it be clear from the start (without familiarity)? I mean, what "weight" on a NN means is not clear to me until I study machine learning, right? Then I find out that it doesn't have the same meaning as it does in dietary terms, physics, or legal matters (the "weight of the situation"). For people reading Foucault when he wrote it, which is theory-obsessed bibliophiles in 1960-1980s Paris academic and student and political world, primarily, it was as clear as would be for Peter Norvig to read an AI paper and understanding everything.