Впливи генеалогії Фрідріха Ніцше на методологічні підходи Мішеля Фуко
Files
Date
2018
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
ДВНЗ «Київський національний економічний університет імені Вадима Гетьмана»
Abstract
У статті представлені основні моменти генеалогічного проекту ФрідріхаНіцше, а також вплив останнього на методологічні підходи Мішеля Фуко;розглянуті, головним чином впливи німецького мислителя на розробку проектів археології знання і генеалогії влади у самій філософії Мішеля Фуко.
The article is dedicated to the research of Nietzsche’s methodology influences on Michel Foucault’s methods, namely – to the development of the last two instruments of philosophical-historical analysis, and specifically – to his genealogy and archaeology as methods of historical discoursesexposure, the sources of which can be found in genealogy ofNietzsche, and to the analysis of the differences between these two Foucault’s methods – in particular. The author primarily demonstrates that the genealogy of morality by Nietzsche, the archeology of knowledge and the genealogy of power by Foucault are aimed at analyzing the present through the prism of a new re-reading of history with an emphasis on the radical breakdown of the historical processes itself: the origins of morality, knowledge and power are not determined by historical logic, but are purely based on power relations of their agents. The author demonstrates that one of the most striking differences in historical methodology of Nietzsche and Foucault is seen in the involvement of the psychologist and the status of a researcher in his work: genealogy by Nietzsche is extremely psychological, the figure of the researcher is strongly felt in it, while Foucault does not have such a psychological approach, because the latter, firstly, is a representative of a linguistic turn and does not seek after the statements of any psychology, no other reality. Secondly, Foucault’s “archeological period” is a representation of structuralism in which man is practically absent.
The article is dedicated to the research of Nietzsche’s methodology influences on Michel Foucault’s methods, namely – to the development of the last two instruments of philosophical-historical analysis, and specifically – to his genealogy and archaeology as methods of historical discoursesexposure, the sources of which can be found in genealogy ofNietzsche, and to the analysis of the differences between these two Foucault’s methods – in particular. The author primarily demonstrates that the genealogy of morality by Nietzsche, the archeology of knowledge and the genealogy of power by Foucault are aimed at analyzing the present through the prism of a new re-reading of history with an emphasis on the radical breakdown of the historical processes itself: the origins of morality, knowledge and power are not determined by historical logic, but are purely based on power relations of their agents. The author demonstrates that one of the most striking differences in historical methodology of Nietzsche and Foucault is seen in the involvement of the psychologist and the status of a researcher in his work: genealogy by Nietzsche is extremely psychological, the figure of the researcher is strongly felt in it, while Foucault does not have such a psychological approach, because the latter, firstly, is a representative of a linguistic turn and does not seek after the statements of any psychology, no other reality. Secondly, Foucault’s “archeological period” is a representation of structuralism in which man is practically absent.
Description
Keywords
генеалогія моралі, археологія знання, генеалогія влади, проблематизація, genealogy of morals, archaeology of knowledge, genealogy of power
Citation
Беркаль М. Впливи генеалогії Фрідріха Ніцше на методологічні підходи Мішеля Фуко / Максим Беркаль // Університетська кафедра. Культурологія. Аксіологія. Філософія. Етнологія. Дискусії. Рецензії. Анотації : альм. / М-во освіти і науки України, ДВНЗ «Київ. нац. екон. ун-т ім. В. Гетьмана», Ін-т приклад. та проф. етики ; [редкол.: Ю. Вільчинський (голов. ред.) та ін.]. – Київ : КНЕУ, 2018. – № 7. – С. 121–142.