When I first read your small blurb of a much bigger post-modern philosophy, that you, from what I understand, helped establish, I was a little confused. What does this have to do with anything? I know your work indirectly, but I do not know you. You begin by establishing your intent, that of which, from the small bit I read, was never fully explained, but shows how the tides and turns of history both confuse and exonerate humanity from intent, a priori, telos. You decompose, incompletely from what I read, the language that guide history and objectivity. It seems that not reading your work in its complete form is poetic justice, as you assert we can’t know it all anyway.
I wonder though, what have you started? Post-modernism claims that all attempts at fundamental categorization and objective analysis are flawed because each is irreparably tethered to the specific cultural and individual viewpoint from which it came. Each attempt at understanding truth is tainted by subjective bias, which can never be avoided and “so-called” objective philosophies really reveal more about the conditions and biases of the person/group who wrote it than the subject matter itself.” What I immediately find interesting about this type of claim, though, Foucault–if you would be so kind to indulge an ignorant man who is only trying to learn–is that while it suggests an openness that nothing can be understood and truth never be found, an objective truth claim is made. I wish to explain further my position though, before any objections are made.
It seems to me that you are claiming that everything is relative. All philosophies, such as moral ones like utilitarianism, claim to be objective, but really in trying to understand the spectrum objectively, the subjective philosopher cannot avoid his own bias. Truth, then, is influenced by, what is nothing more than personal experience and cultural surroundings. I think you have a point, Michel, but that it is not the end of the story. Socrates said that the only thing he knew, was that he knew nothing. It sounds an awful like what you are saying now, just in a long-winded way, with all the connections you can muster in between. I don’t think it is good, to throw up our hands and say “everything is relative” though. If that were true, ends, or purpose, would cease to exist. Nietzsche followed your line of thought and logically concluded that there would be no point in even achieving a consensus, as each individual would assign his own subjective end, without the ability to impress upon, without being hypocritical, their worldview on any other autonomous being. You could bring a Utilitarian viewpoint to lead the masses in order to obtain the most pleasure possible for the most number of people, but then a worldview would still be necessary to achieve this. A worldview created by the most powerful of this group, who could so easily choke out the autonomy of others in order to preserve or enhance their own. I digress though, you have already left room for such events within your philosophy so far as I can see. I will not bore you with Platonic-style ramblings of political transformations.
I don’t believe that because we come from different places and have different backgrounds, we cannot apply reason or adjudicate between rival/opposed world views. We can differentiate and discover our concept of the telos and where we obtain it, if we recognize our own philosophical underpinnings. The challenge is to step back far enough, throughout our historical a priori, to consider our own subjectivity and limitations. Language and culture, in the modern age, is hardly a challenge to overcome if we are willing to try. This challenge, what you identify as the impossibility of sifting through various information and channels, is where systematic logical analysis steps in. We can never know with certainty when logic has stumbled across truth or not, though. So we can arrive at the end of our logical investigation and have discovered what is most consistent and true based on the information that we have. We are tirelessly called to reexamine ourselves and our views. This is a scientific idea, stemming directly from systems of logic established by Aristotle and enhanced in a symbolic form by Bertrand Russell. Knowledge and indeed truth, is amorphous in some sense. This you are right about. It is a modern idea that humanity has been unable to do this in the past and that we are somehow smarter now than we were then. Did you know that Greek mathematicians discovered that the world was round well before Christ’s existance? They discovered this truth, using nothing but logic, a stick, and the position of shadows cast by the sun. It is a common misconception that this knowledge was “lost” in the middle ages, too. All educated groups knew the truth of the Earth’s circular ratio. Would it surprise you further that theories of the big bang originated in a monastery, where monks dedicated themselves to astronomy and sound mathematics? Why, if no truth can be found between different cultural groups of people, was Calculus discovered in China, 1,000 years prior to the time it was discovered in the West? The east dedicated their time differently, using different sets of information, but in the end, the West, eventually came to the same conclusions, using different means. If you follow my analogy of Calculus: the end, “the purpose,” or the truth, was the same despite the torrents of varying information, cultural, and otherwise.
Systematic logic, while relying on the varying epistemologies that employ it, is incredibly useful in obtaining the truth, especially as more information is given. This is why the scientific method has been so successful in ascertaining truth. It provides logic with an abundant source of information to use. I believe that through systematic logical analysis humanity has and will continue to engage in discourse, pitting rival philosophy against rival philosophy. Informed and responsible debate can and must take place to discover the ends of things, maybe if only for its own sake. So do not give up, my dear Foucault, even if the purpose is to itself; at least, while circular, the idea does not contradict itself.
I look forward to reading more from you, Foucault. I hope I have not been too presumptious. You will understand that I cannot help myself sometimes and I tend to ramble.
