Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Foucault, Michel
 
Books on Amazon
Redundancy Theory II, 115ff
Statement/Foucault: at first sight the statement appears as the last, indissociable element, which can be isolated and can enter into a play with other elements. A point without surface. Problem: if the statement is the elementary unity of the discourse, what is it then? What are their distinguishing traits? What limits do you have to recognize?
For example redundancy theory: the question of whether in logic "A" and "it is true that A" are interchangeable. Foucault: as statements they are not equivalent and not interchangeable. (FoucaultVsRedundancy Theory). They cannot be in the same place in the discourse.
E.g. the present King of France is bald: can only be analyzed by recognizing in the form of a single statement two different propositions, each of which can be true or false. (Strawson: utterance, point of time).
E.g. "I am lying": can only be true in a relation to a claim at a lower level.
The criteria for the identity of a proposition do not apply to the description of the particular unit of a statement.

Fouc I
M. Foucault
The Order of Things: An Archaeology of Human Sciences 1994

Fouc II
Michel Foucault
Archäologie des Wissens Frankfurt/M. 1981


> Counter arguments against Foucault
> Counter arguments in relation to Redundancy Theory



back to list view | > Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-03-27