David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
of autonomous agency. Yet neither denies the importance of human freedom. In Heidegger's early work the subject is reinterpreted as Dasein -- a non autonomous, culturally bound (or thrown) way of being, that can yet change the field of possibilities in which it acts. In middle Heidegger, thinkers alone have the power to disclose a new world, while in later Heidegger, anyone is free to step back from the current world, to enter one of a plurality of worlds, and, thereby, facilitate a change in the practices of one's society. Likewise, for early Foucault, the subject is reduced to a function of discourse; for middle Foucault, writing can open up new worlds, and in later Foucault, freedom is understood as the power to question what is currently taken for granted, plus the capacity to change oneself and, perhaps, one's milieu. In short, while both Heidegger and Foucault reject the Enlightenment idea of an autonomous subject, they have a robust notion of freedom and action. And it will turn out for both thinkers that each person can modify his or her cultural practices by openness to embeddedness in them. All this needs a great deal of explanation. We need to determine, on the one hand, just what each rejects and why, and, on the other, what series of understandings of the self and its possibilities for action each introduces.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
A. Beaulieu (2010). Towards a Liberal Utopia: The Connection Between Foucault's Reporting on the Iranian Revolution and the Ethical Turn. Philosophy and Social Criticism 36 (7):801-818.
Andrew Garnar (2006). Power, Action, Signs: Between Peirce and Foucault. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 42 (3):347-366.
Timothy Rayner (2004). On Questioning Being: Foucault's Heideggerian Turn. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 12 (4):419 – 438.
Babette Babich (2009). ‘A Philosophical Shock’: Foucault’s Reading of Heidegger and Nietzsche. In Carlos G. Prado (ed.), Foucault's Legacy. Continuum.
Rob Devos (2002). The Return of the Subject in Michel Foucault. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 76 (2):255-280.
Cynthia R. Nielsen (2014). Unearthing Consonances in Foucault's Account of Greco‐Roman Self‐Writing and Christian Technologies of the Self. Heythrop Journal 55 (2):188-202.
Christopher Falzon (2010). Foucault, Philosopher of Dialogue. In Timothy O'Leary & Christopher Falzon (eds.), Foucault and Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. 222--245.
Hans Sluga (1985). Foucault, the Author, and the Discourse. Inquiry 28 (1-4):403 – 415.
A. W. McHoul (1993/1998). A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power, and the Subject. University of Otago Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads208 ( #3,479 of 1,410,134 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #38,371 of 1,410,134 )
How can I increase my downloads?