Foucault And Critical Problems

This dissertation starts from epistemic questions, and its main purpose is to show whether there is a coherent theme during the development of Michel Foucault's thought, and whether, despite of his continuous efforts, finally frees himself from the shadow of apriorism.Introduction: Whether there is a central theme in Foucault's thoughts, whether there exists coherence, this is the initial concern of this dissertation. In the archaeological periods, Foucault's main concern is about the critical question of the conditions of possibility of knowledge. In order to show his difference from Kant, and to establish the proper object of his owe study, Foucault introduces the concept of historical a priori, together with a new method: archaeology. In the genealogical periods, Foucault abandons the concept of historical a priori, and turns to focus on the question of truth, but this also does not make Foucault free from the difficult conditions of transcendentalism. In order to be freed from it, Foucault re-works on the question of the conditions of possibility, introducing the concept of subjectization and the theme of subject, and with a focus on self-construction, giving his thought coherence. But how to understand this re-introduction of subject, how to avoid its contradiction with archaeo-geneology? This gives rise to the problem of how to understand the subject and subjectization. The re-introduction of subject also creates the problem of how to avoid the implicit contradiction in transcendentalism, how to compromise the contradiction between idealism and genealogy, which is embodied in the practical status of subjectization, and problematisation and the games of truth are the final attempts to resolve the critical question.Chapter 1 Historical a priori is an attempt to historicize the transcendental problem in order to keep the same distance both from materialism and from idealism. In the archaeological periods, there appear different definitions of historical a priori, which are embodied in different texts of the archaeological periods. There are two aims in this chapter: firstly, it tries to find the internal connections between these different definitions of historical a priori, with an expectation of reaching coherence and unity of the object of the archaeological study. Secondly, in order to clarify whether, in the renewed critical question and historicized themes, Foucault has evaded the anthropological illusions, the dissertation makes detailed observation of historical a priori in the archaeological periods. So this chapter centers on the concept of historical a priori, observing in succession on the problem of the conditions ofpossibility of truth, the connection between Foucault and Kant, the relations between historical a priori and structuralism, Merleau Ponty and Martin Heidegger.Chapter 2 In the genealogical periods, Foucault does not content himself with the examination of the transcendental conditions of the possibility of truth. Questioning the relation between truth and power from the historical angel, he tries to grasp the real nature of truth. So there is a whole change both in the concepts Foucault uses and the boundary of his theory. This chapter is precisely to examine the status and role of the critical question during the genealogical periods, through the analysis of truth and the conditions of acceptability of it, pointing out that the aim of Foucault's genealogical is to try to determine the conditions of acceptability of truth, and that Foucault has never considered to abandon the archaeological problem of the conditions of the possibility of it, which now having to be put into a wider context by referring these conditions to the will to truth. So around the genealogical turn, this chapter examines the analysis of truth and the acceptability of it in the order of discourse, the relations between the genealogical turn and the will to truth, the aim of genealogy, together with the difference and connection between the concept of historical a priori and the acceptability of truth, savoir and connaissance.Chapter 3 This chapter deals with the statement of the power-knowledge model in the genealogy of human sciences. Foucault's genealogy of human sciences generally satisfies the demands of the plan originally established in the order of discourse. The exposition of the power-knowledge model and the newly proposed concept of the truth regime make Foucault forms a pragmatic understanding of truth, which cannot be found by archaeology that focuses only on discourse. Besides examining Foucault's power-knowledge model and the concept of subjugation and objectification, truth regime and the regime of discourse, this chapter will also analyze the advantage of the concept of regime over that of episteme, and the internal contradiction it includes. Thus this chapter begins from a comparison between Foucault's understanding of power-truth and that of the models of Plato, Francis Bacon and Karl Marx, followed by the relationship between subjugation and objectification, Foucault's truth view, regime and episteme, together with their relationship with the critical question.Chapter 4 Although later Foucault continues with the genealogical theme, there is a great change in the concepts used, which is consistent with Foucault's refocusing on the relationship between truth and subject, and self-construction becomes the priority...