Jan D > Recent Status Updates

In the (I guess) final part, the text is a bit easier to read and themes from all over the book come together, again.

It seems to help to note down where which concept was defined for the "classic" period, cause now come some references back to it. Prose still full of "somehow" constructs that somehow make it hard to understand.

Dense, but slow reading makes it easier to understand.

Incredibly dense prose. I get that some things can't be said easily but…
Don't go into it without some summary or a very deep knowledge of marxism, poststructuralism and lots of words.

Starts understandable but not light.

It was Heideggering so extremely that I put it on halt.

The introduction of the German edition already seems to mimic the style of the main content. I feel prepared.

forgot it was here. Well, it is fun. I just have trouble telling all the different people at the theater apart, but I am not the only one afaic.

Second part starts slowly. It gets a bit easier to read again (good) but refers back a lot to the not always easy to grasp entanglements of the episteme from the first part (this is good cause it helps to understand the 1st part better and bad since this brings up not understood things which I hoped to ignore)

It makes more sense if one takes a "Key to…" book along.
Some stuff is great but I always wonder if I interpret this into the vague and metaphorical language or if that is something I can say that Foucault meant. At least I think I got what he meant with the importance of "is" as a verb, but then, again, I'm unsure.

I do not get what makes the verb "be" so special for Foucault. It mainly makes me think of stilted language which avoids verbs, except for what one can't get away without. Also do not get his take on Sign Languages. Or does he actually refer to something like ASL here? Anyway.
The biology part made more sense to me.

But at least it is none of the "lets write like Heidegger and Witgenstein at the same moment"-works.

OK, this is tough stuff, interesting, but all over the place. Also I am reading the surkamp edition, which needs way more empty pages to make annotations on.

It is exiting and covers topics that interest me a lot. However, the writing style… Discipline and Punish was more clear. Also more gore.
Also, the other off-the-mill Foucault-problem applies: some things cited, some not; how is he sure about some things, not about others.

Learned about "Logique de Port-Royal" (not from Foucault, but from Wikipedia). It has nothing to do with pirates, but with a monastery near Paris. Also: Signs! Reference! Epistémè!
As well as… "Logique de Port-Royal" having a Grammar-focused predecessor, to which Chomsky refers in Cartesian Grammar… (OK, looking up stuff clearly taught me something, whereas the book itself… we'll see)

A bit harder to read than discipline and punish; it also does start less gory. But almost anything does, luckily. Wonder if it goes well with Rorty (I guess so)

mehr Probleme mit Descartes, Wahrheit und der Erfindung des Körper/Mental-Dualismus. Ebenso: Mögliche Verbindungen zu Whitehead. Kleinere Probleme mit Thomas Nagel.
Weiterhin recht lesbar, keine neu erfundenen Wörter, Klammerwitze. Es gibt Verben in den Sätzen. Soweit so gut.

last chapter coming…

Text ist besser als die Kapitelüberschriften. Schonmal ein guter Start, besser als andersrum.

More trouble with Plato, Descartes, Leibniz as well as with power and knowledge.

Continues to be rad.

The intro is easy to read, personal and complained about Plato and Descartes already, so that might be my kind of book ;-)