Notes Foucault & Derrida: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "===Foucault=== ==Introduction== *pg.4 #history as written by the victors *pg.5 #paradigm of meta-historicity #ouvre: author's body of work #How history is analyzed, or not p...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
===Foucault=== | ===Foucault=== | ||
==Introduction== | ==Introduction - Foucault== | ||
*pg.4 | *pg.4 | ||
#history as written by the victors | #history as written by the victors | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
#The subject is the historian | #The subject is the historian | ||
===The Historical a priori and the Archive=== | ===The Historical a priori and the Archive - Foucault=== | ||
*pg. 127 | *pg. 127 | ||
#The classical scientists used positivity when furthering their work, one of many historical a priori in science | #The classical scientists used positivity when furthering their work, one of many historical a priori in science | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
#diagnosis: the archive being the ruglator, not the translator, of history | #diagnosis: the archive being the ruglator, not the translator, of history | ||
===Archive Fever: A freudian Impression=== | ===Archive Fever: A freudian Impression - Derrida=== | ||
*pg.9-10 | *pg.9-10 | ||
#archive no longer as an institution, but as a movement - Foucault | #archive no longer as an institution, but as a movement - Foucault | ||
Latest revision as of 19:19, 22 September 2014
Foucault
Introduction - Foucault
- pg.4
- history as written by the victors
- pg.5
- paradigm of meta-historicity
- ouvre: author's body of work
- How history is analyzed, or not perceived as histories, but reactions, the mental state of the age rather than total history
- pg.7
- Do not think that the paradigm of history (its permanence) and continuity hasn't mixed. The disciplines are always critiquing the intentions of both their documents as well as their critics
- archive as curating a link to validate society
- pg.9
- History is perceived as being more complex and so the history as a monument sees three consequences when reformatting total history into a much more general history (...?)
- pg.11
- Making new history requires several methodological problems to be solved. In order for general history to be managed properly.
- pg. 12
- if consciousness should survive, the only option would be to make it unanalyzable to historians/curators/interpreters
- pg. 13
- History may never be total, but it can be progressive, an internal dynamic of development which drives a movement
- pg. 14
- The subject is the historian
The Historical a priori and the Archive - Foucault
- pg. 127
- The classical scientists used positivity when furthering their work, one of many historical a priori in science
- Discourse through personal conviction --> Positivity: that everything is explainable, nothing is mystic
- pg.128
- Histories as not generally translated, but regulated narrowly
- pg.131
- diagnosis: the archive being the ruglator, not the translator, of history
Archive Fever: A freudian Impression - Derrida
- pg.9-10
- archive no longer as an institution, but as a movement - Foucault
- pg.12
- in its haste to preserve documents the archive hasn't critically considered what structures it should/shouldn't document and so it risks doing violence to the documents in the archiving process
- pg.13
- Archive and Freud? Trippy...
- pg.14
- archival death drive? --> Destination of memory
- pg.15
- 'good' is decided upon what context archival violence deems it to be, as the archive decides what to remember and what to forget
- pg.16
- the future depends on the future of archival planning
- pg.17
- the current technical structure defines how the content is presented and handled. presentation of the same content will continue to change as the technical structure changes --> hence the content's context continues to change