ConclusionIn his essay on Kant’s ‘W

Conclusion
In his essay on Kant’s ‘What is Enlightenment?’ (Was ist Aufklärung?), Foucault writes of his work as being an ‘historical ontology of ourselves’ through a critique of what we do, say and think. He makes clear throughout the essay what this form of critique is not: not a theory, doctrine, or body of knowledge that accumulates over time. Instead, it is an attitude, ‘an ethos, a philosophical life in which the cririque of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them’ (Foucault, 1984: 50). What is the motivation for this work? ‘How can the growth of capabilities be disconnected from the intensification of power relations?’ (ibid.: 48). There is no ‘gesture of rejection’ in this ethos. It moves beyond the ‘outside-inside alternative’ in the name of a critique that ‘consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits’ (ibid.: 45). The purpose being ‘to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessarry limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression’ (ibid.: 45). Overall, it is genealogical in form: ‘it will not deduce from the form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think’ (ibid.: 46). The ideal lies in the possibility of setting oneself free. To examine the internal modes of the ordering of truth, but not in the name of a truth that lies beyond it, is seen to open up possibilities for its transgression.
Despite criticisms that his work lacked a normative dimension (Fraser, 1989), the orientation of Foucault’s approach is clear. The issue translates into one of how one-sided states of domination can be avoided in order to promote a two-sided relation of dialogue. Foucault’s interventions were practically motivated. The journey for these investigations being from how we are constituted as objects of knowledge to how we are constituted as subjects of power/ knowledge. What we can take from Foucault is the insight that critical approaches to cultural analysis cannot practise on the presupposition that there is an essence to humanity. The idea of coming to knw ourselves differently and viewing the possibilities for transformations, is about interpreting ourselves differently. Between self-definition and social situation lies the potential to render the ‘cultural unconscious apparent’ (Foucault, 1989: 73)

Results (Indonesian) 1:

KesimpulanIn his essay on Kant’s ‘What is Enlightenment?’ (Was ist Aufklärung?), Foucault writes of his work as being an ‘historical ontology of ourselves’ through a critique of what we do, say and think. He makes clear throughout the essay what this form of critique is not: not a theory, doctrine, or body of knowledge that accumulates over time. Instead, it is an attitude, ‘an ethos, a philosophical life in which the cririque of what we are is at one and the same time the historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us and an experiment with the possibility of going beyond them’ (Foucault, 1984: 50). What is the motivation for this work? ‘How can the growth of capabilities be disconnected from the intensification of power relations?’ (ibid.: 48). There is no ‘gesture of rejection’ in this ethos. It moves beyond the ‘outside-inside alternative’ in the name of a critique that ‘consists of analyzing and reflecting upon limits’ (ibid.: 45). The purpose being ‘to transform the critique conducted in the form of necessarry limitation into a practical critique that takes the form of a possible transgression’ (ibid.: 45). Overall, it is genealogical in form: ‘it will not deduce from the form of what we are what it is impossible for us to do and to know; but it but it will separate out, from the contingency that has made us what we are, the possibility of no longer being, doing, or thinking what we are, do, or think’ (ibid.: 46). The ideal lies in the possibility of setting oneself free. To examine the internal modes of the ordering of truth, but not in the name of a truth that lies beyond it, is seen to open up possibilities for its transgression.Despite criticisms that his work lacked a normative dimension (Fraser, 1989), the orientation of Foucault’s approach is clear. The issue translates into one of how one-sided states of domination can be avoided in order to promote a two-sided relation of dialogue. Foucault’s interventions were practically motivated. The journey for these investigations being from how we are constituted as objects of knowledge to how we are constituted as subjects of power/ knowledge. What we can take from Foucault is the insight that critical approaches to cultural analysis cannot practise on the presupposition that there is an essence to humanity. The idea of coming to knw ourselves differently and viewing the possibilities for transformations, is about interpreting ourselves differently. Between self-definition and social situation lies the potential to render the ‘cultural unconscious apparent’ (Foucault, 1989: 73)

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Kesimpulan
Dalam esainya di Kant 'Apa Pencerahan?' (Apakah ist Aufklarung?), Foucault menulis karyanya sebagai sebuah 'ontologi historis diri' melalui kritik dari apa yang kita lakukan, katakan dan berpikir. Dia menjelaskan seluruh esai apa bentuk kritik tidak: bukan teori, doktrin, atau tubuh pengetahuan yang terakumulasi dari waktu ke waktu. Sebaliknya, itu adalah sikap, 'etos, kehidupan filosofis dimana cririque dari apa yang kita adalah pada satu dan waktu yang sama analisis historis dari batas yang dipaksakan pada kami dan percobaan dengan kemungkinan melampaui mereka '(Foucault, 1984: 50). Apa motivasi untuk pekerjaan ini? 'Bagaimana bisa pertumbuhan kemampuan terputus dari intensifikasi hubungan kekuasaan?' (ibid .: 48). Tidak ada 'gerakan penolakan' di etos ini. Bergerak di luar 'di luar-dalam alternatif' dalam nama kritik yang 'terdiri dari menganalisis dan merenungkan batas' (ibid .: 45). Tujuan menjadi 'untuk mengubah kritik yang dilakukan dalam bentuk pembatasan necessarry menjadi kritik praktis yang mengambil bentuk pelanggaran yang mungkin' (ibid .: 45). Secara keseluruhan, itu adalah silsilah dalam bentuk: 'tidak akan menyimpulkan dari bentuk apa yang kita adalah apa yang tidak mungkin bagi kita untuk melakukan dan mengetahui; tetapi tetapi akan memisahkan, dari kontingensi yang telah membuat kami apa yang kita, kemungkinan tidak lagi menjadi, melakukan, atau berpikir apa yang kita, lakukan, atau berpikir '(ibid .: 46). Yang ideal terletak pada kemungkinan pengaturan diri bebas. Untuk menguji mode internal pemesanan kebenaran, tetapi tidak dalam nama kebenaran yang terletak di luar itu, terlihat membuka kemungkinan pelanggaran-nya.
Meskipun kritik bahwa karyanya tidak memiliki dimensi normatif (Fraser, 1989), orientasi pendekatan Foucault jelas. Masalah ini diterjemahkan menjadi salah satu cara negara sepihak dominasi dapat dihindari dalam rangka untuk mempromosikan hubungan dua sisi dari dialog. Intervensi Foucault praktis termotivasi. Perjalanan untuk investigasi ini menjadi dari bagaimana kita dibentuk sebagai obyek pengetahuan bagaimana kita dibentuk sebagai subyek kekuasaan / pengetahuan. Apa yang bisa kita ambil dari Foucault adalah wawasan bahwa pendekatan kritis untuk analisis budaya tidak bisa berlatih pada anggapan bahwa ada esensi kemanusiaan. Ide datang ke knw diri berbeda dan melihat kemungkinan transformasi, adalah tentang diri kita menafsirkan secara berbeda. Antara definisi diri dan situasi sosial terletak potensi untuk membuat 'budaya sadar jelas' (Foucault, 1989: 73)