What was the primary issue(s) or problem(s) for Foucault in defining Essay

What was the primary issue(s) or problem(s) for Foucault in defining taradiddle, as appeared in Nietzsche, Genealogy, write up - Essay Example(78). therefrom according to Foucault history should not be a seamless attempt at identifying the natural origin of events. Peoples, cultures, but quite a needs to consider how this idea of the essence has been fabricated. Not only how it has been fabricated, but why people feel the need for some winning of essence is an essential part of history for Foucault.Thus the genealogy that appears in the title of Foucaults book should business sector itself with the details, co-incidences and sheer accidents that underlie the beginnings of knowledge, values and cultures rather than a search for a non-existent origin. In this manner Foucault appears to concomitant Nietzsches argument that traditional history sees itself as a tracing of development towards some mixed bag of close that it sees itself as believing in an eternal truth - whether i t be of events, people, ideas, or religion. Nietzsche, and Foucault subscribes to the same view, suggests that what Foucault calls effective history can only be reached by seeing events as divergent, discordant and essentially in conflict. As Foucault puts it, it should involve the shattering of the unity of mans being, as everything that has been considered to be immutable and immortal must in fact be placed within history. Thus they become mutable and mortal.Foucault, as is o Foucault, as is often the case within his work, focuses on the human body as a locus for this kind of history. Thus the body is molded by a great many distinct regimes it is broken tear by the rhythms of work, rest and holidays it is poisoned by food or values, by eating habits or moral laws it constructs resistances (87). Thus a history of the body, which Foucault attempts in other works, would involve identify these distinct regimes that shape the body, often conflict with one another and thus creating s tress upon the human being. Foucault argues that effective history should move form the distant, remote vantage point of traditional history towards a closeness. It needs to look at the details of life, identifying their contradictions, rather than at the universal processes and themes that may true(a)ly camouflage the reality of events. This closeness should not involve an unrestrained connection with the subject, but rather an alienated view. Overall, Foucault argues that the role of historian as is commonly perceive and practiced leads to a false view of history rather than the contrar7y. Thus the attempt to gain unassailable and comprehensive knowledge of history, through reducing events to their simplest elements in order to explain them actually avoids the true complexity of history. The traditional shell of historian is in fact centered on himself and thus paints the world through his particular biases and opinions, rather than seeing the innate complexity and conflict s that occur within history. Foucault argues that it is necessary to revolt against his type of history if the true nature of it is to be understood, and if it is to really inform the present and the future. To conclude, Foucault essentially dissects the nature of History as it is normally performed within the academic world, suggesting that that attempt to find universal truths in fact masks the actual reality of the world. He