"The Prison Notebooks" and "Truth and Power" (Week 1 Entry 2) 4/13/17

“The Prison Notebooks” Antonio Gramsci and “Truth and Power” Michel Foucault

            The first reading is an excerpt taken from Antonio Gramsci’s The Prison Notebooks. In which the study of philosophy as well as the relations between sense, religion, science and philosophy and how they are all intertwined. Meanwhile the second article taken explores what truth really is and its relation and place along power in our society.

            The first reading stresses the importance of common sense and example of which as religion and then this idea that Gramsci brings up as ‘good’ sense implying in a way that common sense and what society often has told us to believe, paralleling the truths that Foucault tells us about, is not good sense and not the correct way to view things. He essentially tells us to dismiss what we are told to think and believe and think and have sense for ourselves. He further brings up an example of Praxis, in which our ideas are bridged and work together with action. Overall these are good viewpoints that help us take a step back and contemplate “What is truth?”, “What makes sense?”, and even further “How do we know?” It leads us to question and think for ourselves and not simply accept what we are told. In a time like this it is also quintessential to help us know what is true and what are “alternative facts.” Foucault meanwhile explains to us the relation between truth and power and how truth is defined in several ways particularly 5 distinct definitions as he says. These help us realize that power and truth are related and given to us hand in hand. Those in power influence how we define things as truth and not. Systems and social institutions play huge roles in this.

            Ultimately these are good viewpoints that lead us to think for ourselves. However at the same time I thought for myself and wondered, that if Gramsci was dismissing elitism and systems ‘religion’ and ‘common sense’ isn’t it a bit elitist to go and suggest that philosophy is ‘good’ sense. I should be able to be a philosopher and think what is ‘good’ sense myself, right? Instead of what Gramsci defines for me as ‘good’ sense.