Foucault, Kant, Epictetus, and Epicurus

Foucault’s theories of power-knowledge and the ethics of the self can be discussed as discourse and the expression of an ethical substance in their own right. To begin with, there is much in his theories that is consonant with traditional Western philosophy. Foucault develops his theories on ethics by reference to those of Kant and the Hellenists. It is often acknowledged that Kant established the parameters for the discourse on ethics that has framed the discussion in West. He helped establish what Foucault would call the ethical substance, the knowledge, and a moral code for Enlightenment and modern moral philosophy. For Gordon (1980: 235-236, 248), Foucault’s philosophy is grounded in Kant’s idealism where a skeptical approach to power can help society progress in terms of productivity and governance. Hacking remarks that Foucault was “a remarkably able Kantian,” and finds that the two believe that individuals participate in the formation of their ethical selves, whether the work is done internally or imposed by society (Hacking, 1986: 238-239). Guyer and Wood (Kant, 1998: 22-23), in their introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason, repeat the same sentiment by stating that Kant’s discussion of moral law and individual ethics, whatever its merits, has shaped the debate such that modern moral philosophers are all “children of Kant.” Modern philosophers, moreover, must accept or at least debate Kant’s contention that free will is a necessary condition for individual ethics (Kant, 1998: 116; Kant, 1983a). On this matter, Foucault is no exception. Foucault and Kant, however, part company on the matter of ethical legitimization. In the “Third Antinomy,” Kant (1998: 484-489) reasons that freedom of the will requires an originary, or first, cause. Otherwise, all is a perpetual chain reaction of cause and effect. The absence of a metaphysical origin is one of Foucault’s core tenets. They also diverge regarding the relationship of absolute power and the state and its implications for personal ethical behaviour. In

“What is Enlightenment?” (1983b: 42-43), Kant endorses state authority when he writes that it is a

soldier’s and a citizen’s absolute duty to obey the state. While Kant allows scholars and theologians unlimited freedom to dissent, he argues that periods of popular “freedom to comment” must be brief (Kant, 1983b: 44). Rulers can accept some dissent but only as long as they have a “well-disciplined, numerous army to guarantee peace…” (Kant, 1983b: 45). Foucault, meanwhile, argues that personal engagement is an urgent necessity in contemporary politics (Foucault, 2005: 251-252).

In Hermeneutics and “Practices and Sciences of the Self,” Foucault searches for continuities and breaks between the modern era and the Hellenists. Firstly, by an ethics of the self, Foucault did not mean a narcissistic fascination as in the “Californian cult of the self” (Foucault, 1984: 362). Instead, his concept is modeled on the often austere practices of the Hellenists. Foucault repeats their advice: “You must attend to yourself, you must not forget yourself, you must take care of yourself” (Foucault, 2005: 10-11).

While physical care is included, it is quite subordinate to caring for the formation of the ethical self. It is an attitude towards oneself and others that regards humans as subjects. It is a series of actions that

“changes, purifies, transforms, and transfigures” (Foucault, 2005: 10-11).

Foucault is specific about the sources of his written and spoken discourse and why it is important for a contemporary ethics. He said that the Stoics and Epicureans distinguished between two forms of knowing (Foucault, 2005: 237-238). The first, sophism, is the knowledge of things that do not change the self into an ethical being. The second, philosophic knowledge does help form an ethical being. To explain, Foucault distinguishes between false rhetoric and true rhetoric. Rhetoric is analogous to discourse in Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge. Both false and true rhetoric, as with discourse, employ rules, choose words, guide what can and cannot be said, and take into account how it will affect people (Foucault, 2005: 368). False rhetoric, as practiced by sophists, is discourse that is learned and rephrased but never questioned in depth. Since there is little self-examination and moral development, it does not help form an ethical individual. True rhetoric, as sought by philosophers, is a discourse based on a skeptical attitude toward the source of one’s morals. This self-questioning can lead to ethical behaviour.

While teachers can impart either false or true rhetoric, philosophers do not assume to be the arbiter of either. It is expected that individuals will learn how to find true rhetoric and discourse by practicing

philosophy on their own. This free thinking, or individual deliberation, can be both process and content for Foucault’s ethics of the self. It is the ethical substance and discourse behind his vision of ethics. How this freedom might be achieved and whether it is attainable is discussed in the following chapters.

Of course, discussions of truth have not been left in such a simple and clear state. In the concluding remarks to the Hermeneutics’ lectures, Foucault refers to the conundrum where a subject attempts to find true discourse while being formed by other discourses. All he can say is that the

philosophic, ethical person should avoid being a captive product of a claim to truth (Foucault, 2005: 243).

Foucault then goes so far as to call this struggle “the root of the challenge of Western thought to

philosophy” (Foucault, 2005: 487). He continues by referring to phenomenology, the issues of perception and knowing that underpin the self’s captivity or freedom, as the “summit” of Western philosophy (Foucault, 2005: 487). Phenomenology, in Foucault’s argument, is an attempt to understand the desire for certainty and maintain a skeptical attitude so the mind remains open to further information. As so

expressed, it is the ideal of the scientific method and the spirit of the Enlightenment. Foucault, then, is indeed an heir of Kant. It can be said that Foucault’s discourse of process is inspired by the Hellenists but its philosophic problems are ultimately a legacy from the Enlightenment.

Unlike most people, it could be that Foucault was able to bring the bulk of his fundamental concerns regarding ethics to the surface. In Hermeneutics, he constructs a discourse from Hellenism, consistent with the heritage of Kant that is based on the human as subject, the nature of truth, and how it is to be known. As ethical substance, those are the issues he attempts to solve through the three main aspects of his work, i.e., how the human subject can face power-knowledge to live ethically. Of course, there remains a portion of his discourse and ethical substance not well discussed because his theories of power-knowledge and ethics were left in an inconclusive state. For instance, he addresses the problem of finding true rhetoric while thinking within a potentially false rhetoric with an admonishment not to allow that to happen. The latent content of his discourse should emerge as his unresolved “preoccupations” are investigated in the chapters to come.