Foucault e a história: um encontro com Hegel e Nietzsche

Abstract

Urged on by the turbulent present moment, awakened by the end of the pipe dreams of a unipolar world governed by universal principles, our main objective in this work is to grasp a perspective on our history that best fits the current situation. Accepting that history can in some way be made intelligible, but without considering it intrinsic to a project of progressive continuity, we follow the understanding that proposes a scheme made up of somewhat autonomous conformations, which are not essentially linked, separated from each other by ruptures that make them not only unprecedented but also discontinuous. To this end, we must point out the shortcomings of the principles of a history that is intelligible in itself, founded on an essentialist metaphysics, in order to defend the other, a perspective that is more in tune with human experience in its incessant becoming and multiplicity of forms. This is how we evoke and relate the conceptions of three important authors who, in one way or another, have addressed the question of history, each of them experiencing it at different times, although, in a way, consecutively: Hegel, a German philosopher whose work dates back to the first part of the 19th century; Nietzsche, also German, who wrote in the second part of the same century; and Foucault, a French thinker who worked on his theories in the second half of the 20th century. First, we outline the Hegelian philosophy of history, as set out in the Lessons on the subject, articulating it with previous theoretical developments. Then, having clarified the essentialist metaphysical nature of Hegel's historical perspective, we critique it, calling on Nietzschean thought as understood by Foucault. Finally, by discussing Foucault's archaeological method, we will try to establish, in his debt to Nietzschean thought and its critique of metaphysics, a relationship between his historical-philosophical perspective and Hegelian thought, in order to show the former as a more fruitful and plausible alternative for understanding human history compared to the latter.