TITLE

Foucault, normativity and critique as a practice of the self

AUTHOR(S)
Han-Pile, Béatrice
PUB. DATE
March 2016
SOURCE
Continental Philosophy Review;Mar2016, Vol. 49 Issue 1, p85
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
In this paper I distinguish between two main critical questions: 'how possible' questions, which look for enabling conditions (empirical or transcendental) and raise issues of epistemic normativity; and 'whether permissible' questions, which relate to conditions of legitimacy and ethical normativity. I examine the interplay of both types of questions in Foucault's work and argue that this helps us to understand both the function of the historical a priori in the archeological period and the subsequent accusations of crypto-normativity levelled against Foucault by commentators such as Taylor and Habermas. I chart the complex conceptual space available for a defense. After examining several possible replies (in particular deflationary and constructivist), I conclude that the most effective option, and the one that fits Foucault's approach best, is to refuse the demand for normative justification as self-defeating, and to opt for the cultivation of an appropriate ethical sensibility through an emphasis on critique as a performative practice of the self. I offer in conclusion some thoughts on what such practice may look like for Foucault.
ACCESSION #
114309006

 

Related Articles

  • LEGAL VALIDITY AND THE INFINITE REGRESS. Black, Oliver // Law & Philosophy;Nov1996, Vol. 15 Issue 4, p339 

    The following four theses all have some intuitive appeal: (I) There are valid norms: (II) A norm is valid only if justified by a valid norm. (III) Justification, on the class of norms, has an irreflexive proper ancestral. (IV) There is no infinite sequence of valid norms each of which is...

  • Infinitism, finitude and normativity. Turri, John // Philosophical Studies;Apr2013, Vol. 163 Issue 3, p791 

    I evaluate two new objections to an infinitist account of epistemic justification, and conclude that they fail to raise any new problems for infinitism. The new objections are a refined version of the finite-mind objection, which says infinitism demands more than finite minds can muster, and the...

  • Can Steadfast Peer Disagreement Be Rational? Ruth, Weintraub // Philosophical Quarterly;Oct2013, Vol. 63 Issue 253, p740 

    According to conciliatory views about peer disagreement, both peers must accord their disagreeing peer some weight, and move (to some extent) towards him. Non-conciliatory views allow one peer, the one who responded correctly to the evidence, to remain steadfast. In this paper, I consider the...

  • The Diagonal and the Demon. Comesa�a, Juan // Philosophical Studies;Sep2002, Vol. 110 Issue 3, p249 

    Reliabilism about epistemic justification � the thesis that what makes a belief epistemically justified is that it was produced by a reliable process of belief-formation � must face two problems. First, what has been called ``the new evil demon problem'', which arises from the idea...

  • RELIABILITY AND JUSTIFICATION. Feldman, Richard // Monist;Apr85, Vol. 68 Issue 2, p159 

    The article reports that according to a simple version of the reliability theory of epistemic justification, a belief is justified. if and only if the process leading to that belief is reliable. The idea behind this theory is simple and attractive. In this article the author raise a problem for...

  • Rationalizing beliefs: evidential vs. pragmatic reasons. Vahid, Hamid // Synthese;Oct2010, Vol. 176 Issue 3, p447 

    Beliefs can be evaluated from a number of perspectives. Epistemic evaluation involves epistemic standards and appropriate epistemic goals. On a truth-conducive account of epistemic justification, a justified belief is one that serves the goal of believing truths and avoiding falsehoods. Beliefs...

  • Norms of Assertion: The Quantity and Quality of Epistemic Support. Carter, J.; Gordon, Emma // Philosophia;Dec2011, Vol. 39 Issue 4, p615 

    We show that the contemporary debate surrounding the question 'What is the norm of assertion?' presupposes what we call the quantitative view, i.e. the view that this question is best answered by determining how much epistemic support is required to warrant assertion. We consider what Jennifer...

  • The Epistemic Demands of Environmental Virtue. Kawall, Jason // Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics;Mar2010, Vol. 23 Issue 1/2, p109 

    To lead an environmentally virtuous life requires information—about morality, environmental issues, the impacts of our actions and commitments, our options for alternatives, and so on. On the other hand, we are finite beings with limited time and resources. We cannot feasibly investigate...

  • Reasons to act and believe: naturalism and rational justification in Hume’s philosophical project. Garrett, Don // Philosophical Studies;Jan2007, Vol. 132 Issue 1, p1 

    Is Hume a naturalist? Does he regard all or nearly all beliefs and actions as rationally unjustified? In order to settle these questions, it is necessary to examine their key terms (‘naturalism’ and ‘rational justification’) and to understand the...

  • A DILEMMA FOR SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG'S MODERATE PYRRHONIAN MORAL SCEPTICISM. Hough, Gerry // Philosophical Quarterly;Jul2008, Vol. 58 Issue 232, p457 

    In order for us to have epistemic justification, Sinnott-Armstrong believes we do not have to be able to rule out all sceptical hypotheses. He suggests that it is sufficient if we have ‘modestly justified beliefs’, i.e., if our evidence rules out all non-sceptical alternatives. I...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics