Thanks for your comment! I’m just now digging into the thorny issue of Foucault’s relationship with Kant, the Enlightenment, modernity, etc. I recently came across a series of excellent articles by Colin Koopman, who offers, in my opinion, some pretty good counter-arguments to Han-Pile’s position; yet, there as aspects of Han-Pile’s and Kevin Thompson’s read that seem right as well, not to mention appealing with regard to the direction I see my project moving. Suffice it to say, I’m still undecided at this point. However, if I have time, I hope to post on the Koopman/Thompson exchange that was recently published in _Foucault Studies_. If I do, I’d love to hear from you.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

I was lucky enough during my undergraduate degree to study Foucault with a lecturer who had a keen sense as to what Foucault was on about. He also chose the course readings very wisely. I am forever in his debt as Foucault’s philosophy has proved invaluable in my philosophical and theological thinking.

However, I did spend some time during my theological training debating with other classmates as to the value of Foucault. I am pleased there are others that share my appreciation of Foucault as well.

Peace,

Phil

Beatrice Han puts it this way; Foucault is caught between the transcendental and the historical (not the transcendent). She said he never found freedom because he was a bad phenomenologist. Her task has become to do better phenomenology in order to get out of the predicament; she concludes that this will be a phenomenology that avoids the theological turn. Against her, I have concluded otherwise.

Cheers
Jeff

I so appreciate your comment. Often, all I receive are very negative comments from fellow Christians about how “evil” Foucault is.

Kind regards,
Cynthia

Not that we should overstate Foucault’s allegiances, but it does indicate how much of an ally we Christians have in Foucault and his incisive reading of history.