>
Often, it’s due to simple misunderstandings (such as confusing truth with belief or knowledge), but sometimes it’s due rather to wilful obscuritySorry, but the pseudophilosopher here is the author of the article.
He can't disambiguate between truth as some property of the universe/time-space/actual historical occurence, and truth as it matters to us, and thinks that just because Foucault doesn't spell the distinction out, as if he spoke to 10 year olds, he himself confuses the too.
For those actually reading continental philosophy, Foucault's meaning is perfectly clear, and no, he doesn't mean truth in the sense of "this table is wooden" or "the sun is hot". Foucault doesn't do philosophy of truth in the way some analytical philosopher would.
It's the century plus old distinction between analytical and continental philosophy, and this is a tired, trite, post.
As for the quote from Foucault he gives as an exercize to the reader, it's trivial to parse. Here's my take, with extra examples to make it even clearer:
"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.
Truth, contrary to myth (whose workings will be worth it to examine some other time), is not some higher ideal that you achieve when you free your spirit, or something that you arrive at in quiet contemplation in solitude, or a privilege of those free from social constraints.
It's something that is manufactured in this world, and it is produced following many different constraints. (e.g. truth in the medieval world followed religious constraints)."
Sorry, but the pseudophilosopher here is the author of the article.
He can't disambiguate between truth as some property of the universe/time-space/actual historical occurence, and truth as it matters to us, and thinks that just because Foucault doesn't spell the distinction out, as if he spoke to 10 year olds, he himself confuses the too.
For those actually reading continental philosophy, Foucault's meaning is perfectly clear, and no, he doesn't mean truth in the sense of "this table is wooden" or "the sun is hot". Foucault doesn't do philosophy of truth in the way some analytical philosopher would.
It's the century plus old distinction between analytical and continental philosophy, and this is a tired, trite, post.
As for the quote from Foucault he gives as an exercize to the reader, it's trivial to parse. Here's my take, with extra examples to make it even clearer:
"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.
Truth, contrary to myth (whose workings will be worth it to examine some other time), is not some higher ideal that you achieve when you free your spirit, or something that you arrive at in quiet contemplation in solitude, or a privilege of those free from social constraints.
It's something that is manufactured in this world, and it is produced following many different constraints. (e.g. truth in the medieval world followed religious constraints)."