International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (3):281 – 303 (1999)
|Abstract||Recently criticism and theory have maintained that Kant's aesthetic theory is central to modernism, and have used Foucault's archaeology to interrogate that modernism. This paper suggests that archaeology ultimately cannot escape Kant's hold because it depends on Kantian theses. The first section will consider how a recent exponent of an 'archaeological' viewpoint characterizes Kant's theory and will set out the critical role Kant ascribes to art. The second section compares Kant and Foucault to argue that despite appearances their projects turn out to be substantially coterminal. My interest in comparing these critics is not only to be provocative but also to show that post-modernist thinking, at least in the guise of Foucault, needs and uses standards that Kant proposes.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Gerald Bruns (2006). Foucault's Modernism. In Gary Gutting (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault. Cambridge University Press.
Salim Kemal (1997). Kant's Aesthetic Theory: An Introduction. St. Martin's Press.
Stanley Rosen (1987). Hermeneutics as Politics. Oxford University Press.
Jessica R. Feldman (2002). Victorian Modernism: Pragmatism and the Varieties of Aesthetic Experience. Cambridge University Press.
Colin McQuillan (2010). Philosophical Archaeology in Kant, Foucault, and Agamben. Parrhesia 10:39-49.
Amy Allen (2003). Foucault and Enlightenment: A Critical Reappraisal. Constellations 10 (2):180-198.
Allen R. Dyer (1992). Polanyi and Post-Modernism. Tradition and Discovery 19 (1):31-38.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #53,790 of 549,037 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,037 )
How can I increase my downloads?