“...discourse is no more than a play, of writing in the first case, of reading in the second case, and of exchange in the third, and this exchange, this reading, this writing never put anything at stake except signs" (Foucault 1470)
Do you agree with Foucault’s idea that rhetoric has less to do with knowledge and more to do with signs? Can you think of another way that discourse would be considered as signs rather than knowledge? How do you think Foucault derived this claim?
I disagree with this in that I think knowledge is more powerful than signs. I think that Foucault was wrong in his theory that signs are more important because regardless of these signs knowledge holds more. The signs are a way to use deception whereas knowledge is more concrete.
ReplyDelete