Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
My initial instinct was to prevent this article like the plague due to the author. I knew that Michel Foucault's work could be thickly packed and intellectually difficult. A review of so notable a writer could be fraught with risk. And yet, I was curious. The title of the job, in Foucault's terms is the énoncé or announcement that could have meaning only within the context of a broader discourse. Foucault was talking not only about other people, but about himself and his connection to the vast discourse for which he is the writer. He had been, after all, speaking before la Société française de Philosophie, immediately after the publication of his massive work, The Archeology of Knowledge. This paper will analyze the overall strategy or type of discourse that Foucault uses to lead his viewers through his argument. He opens his address, "I am suggesting this somewhat strange question..." accompanied by a confession that particular facets of his job "now seem ill-advised and misleading". Slightly odd indeed! The launching dangles like lure in front of the type of philosophers and historians. In the end, one of the most common logical fallacies in academic analysis is the "ad hominem" argument. Such as, "He is Michel Foucault and consequently what he has to say must have merit." His debut continues to intrigue the audience even by what he excludes. He is not likely to examine pertinent questions like the valorization of authors or "the instant when the tales of heroes gave way to a writer's bibliography". Why is Foucault throwing a barb at critics who use "ad hominem" arguments to assault his job or is he making an important comment about a few of his contemporaries who are resting too much on their academic laurel...