“This precisely is the misunderstanding” oh boy was I wrong 😅. The metaphor of excavation by the way, according to my Foucaultian professor, is problematic precisely because it relies on the metaphor of discovery. Why don’t we instead use the metaphor of remembering the past with reference to history? Or maybe even something beyond memory (because it quickly turns into memorializing and stratification of knowledge, which is where inquiry ends). Historical inquiry conceived of as historical discovery or even rediscovery relies on implicit assumptions about the nature of the scientist/historian as a heroic figure
Appreciate the quality work on this little series of Foucault. The puppet's accent makes it entertaining without sacrificing the flow and articulation of his overall ideas. Thank you.
As an archaeologist, to be fair we also primarily deal with interfaces and surfaces of layers of dirt. We look for the surfaces and the boundaries, that can reveal relations with other stratigraphic units. What is within the layer is of secondary importance, and rendered homogeneous and almost flat. We care more about the cause of formation of the layer and its relation with other layers, than the individual objects that are hidden within it (those are "for the museum!") Anyway I love this video.
oh also, please do s is for savoir and please elaborate on the distinction between savoir and connaissance esp for the english reader. s'il vous plait!
“This precisely is the misunderstanding” oh boy was I wrong 😅. The metaphor of excavation by the way, according to my Foucaultian professor, is problematic precisely because it relies on the metaphor of discovery. Why don’t we instead use the metaphor of remembering the past with reference to history? Or maybe even something beyond memory (because it quickly turns into memorializing and stratification of knowledge, which is where inquiry ends). Historical inquiry conceived of as historical discovery or even rediscovery relies on implicit assumptions about the nature of the scientist/historian as a heroic figure
Appreciate the quality work on this little series of Foucault. The puppet's accent makes it entertaining without sacrificing the flow and articulation of his overall ideas. Thank you.
thx!
As an archaeologist, to be fair we also primarily deal with interfaces and surfaces of layers of dirt. We look for the surfaces and the boundaries, that can reveal relations with other stratigraphic units. What is within the layer is of secondary importance, and rendered homogeneous and almost flat. We care more about the cause of formation of the layer and its relation with other layers, than the individual objects that are hidden within it (those are "for the museum!")
Anyway I love this video.
hahaha i love the mini rant he descends into at the mention of Wittgenstein
Thx!
what an amazing work, I look forward to seeing 'G is for Genealogy', please :)
Thank you! -- We'll see what we can do...
This is HILARIOUS!!! Thank you so much for making these
This helped me so much!! Thank u for your hard work❤
I just found this channel. How amazing! Keep it up!
amazing! loved how it ended! heh! you're welcome!
Wtf Im so glad this exists wow
thx!
Love your work ! Thanks for your clear explanations of Michel's main concepts ^^
Thank you!
Very helpful, thanks
I think he wanted to say architecture and mis spoke. Now for eternity his disciples will keep re interpreting his genius
oh also, please do s is for savoir and please elaborate on the distinction between savoir and connaissance esp for the english reader. s'il vous plait!
Hello!! can you please do C is for Concept? From Archaeology? The concept of concept I find rather elusive!
Good idea! We will see what we can do...
Wow!
The resemblance is uncanny apart from his tendency to use a Quebec accent.
Superbe !
thx