<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>General</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/27.aspx</link><description>Everything else.</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Re: Performative contradiction in gender studies</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265945.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:05:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:265945</guid><dc:creator>Jon Irenicus</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265945.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=265945</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, Foucault is full of shit in that instance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Re: Performative contradiction in gender studies</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265867.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:21:57 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:265867</guid><dc:creator>DanielMuff</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265867.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=265867</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;img src="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/Themes/mises2008/images/icon-quote.gif"&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Laughing Man:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;img src="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/Themes/mises2008/images/icon-quote.gif"&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Daniel:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So I&amp;#39;m reading the gender studies section of my art history textbook, and I came about this passage:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;Foucault asserts that all concepts are historically formed and contingent, and so are never universally true. Indeed, there is no sense in which a statement can be said to be true or false... There is no objective way one can speak of, say, sexuality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#39;t this a performative contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily if one believes in polylogicism and or has a Nietzchen outlook. Perhaps a relativist fallacy. Depends on what the individual is trying to assert. When you get into history you get some monstrously asinine individuals who are known as &amp;#39;post-modernists.&amp;#39;&lt;b&gt; They postulate that history is indecipherable due to present day values. We cannot subsume the values and ideas of individuals not in this generation&lt;/b&gt;, therefore all history is a waste of time.&amp;nbsp; I&amp;#39;m not surprised you found this in a book on&amp;nbsp; art history. Such drivel still survives in the bizarre history of art.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I think that is pretty much what Foucault was getting at: &amp;quot;That the truth 100 years ago is not the truth now.&amp;quot; But if that is true, how could he possibly know that? Furthermore, how could the author explaining Foucault in the text possibly know that what is true about Foucault&amp;#39;s theories/etc. is true?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Re: Performative contradiction in gender studies</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265859.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:14:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:265859</guid><dc:creator>Andrew Cain</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265859.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=265859</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;img src="https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/Themes/mises2008/images/icon-quote.gif"&gt; &lt;strong&gt;Daniel:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So I&amp;#39;m reading the gender studies section of my art history textbook, and I came about this passage:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;Foucault asserts that all concepts are historically formed and contingent, and so are never universally true. Indeed, there is no sense in which a statement can be said to be true or false... There is no objective way one can speak of, say, sexuality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#39;t this a performative contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not necessarily if one believes in polylogicism and or has a Nietzchen outlook. Perhaps a relativist fallacy. Depends on what the individual is trying to assert. When you get into history you get some monstrously asinine individuals who are known as &amp;#39;post-modernists.&amp;#39; They postulate that history is indecipherable due to present day values. We cannot subsume the values and ideas of individuals not in this generation, therefore all history is a waste of time.&amp;nbsp; I&amp;#39;m not surprised you found this in a book on&amp;nbsp; art history. Such drivel still survives in the bizarre history of art.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Performative contradiction in gender studies</title><link>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265853.aspx</link><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:46:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:265853</guid><dc:creator>DanielMuff</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><comments>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/thread/265853.aspx</comments><wfw:commentRss>https://archive.freecapitalists.org:443/forums/commentrss.aspx?SectionID=27&amp;PostID=265853</wfw:commentRss><description>&lt;p&gt;So I&amp;#39;m reading the gender studies section of my art history textbook, and I came about this passage:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;Foucault asserts that all concepts are historically formed and contingent, and so are never universally true. Indeed, there is no sense in which a statement can be said to be true or false... There is no objective way one can speak of, say, sexuality.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Isn&amp;#39;t this a performative contradiction?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>