People around web continue to pick up the negative TLS review cited in a previous post. The issue is how Foucault’s work should be read, granting that History of Madness contains historical inaccuracies.
No-one has as yet replied to Scull’s position about historical inaccuracies in History of Madness (eg whether they also extend to other historical works by Foucault or just this one early book, which MF later had his own doubts about).
More interesting than most, this one cites a paper titled “Would it matter if everything Foucault said was wrong?”
“I knew there was something I didn’t like about Foucault” now, having read the review “I see that rumors of your value have been greatly exaggerated.”
While here, a more nuanced reaction:
I am not a great fan of Foucault, but I wonder whether philosophy is a science and whether the possibility that Michel Foucault’s assertions are unproven makes them irrelevant. In other words, if Andrew Scull happens to be right about the scholarly work upon which Foucault based his readings does it make Foucault’s philosophy irrelevant? I believe that Foucault has remained relevant all of these years because he puts his finger on something that may not have been scientifically provable, but that was essential for it led to important and existential questions.