[paganel]

> facticity itself

There are facts and facts. The OP thinks that Foucault's (pseudo-)philosophy is against the fact that the Earth is non-flat, or that saying that the Earth is non-flat is somehow infused with ideology, but there are also facts that are given to us as true (and which affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people) which are indeed infused with ideology, one of the latest examples being the "fact" that austerity was the thing to do after the 2008-2010 crisis (a "fact" which has recently been debunked by the IMF itself, originally one of its most important ideological backers).

[elgaard]

That the Earth is non-flat is a fact.

That austerity was the thing to do was never a fact. Even in 2008-2010 it was a much debated policy.

Just because governments do something that you believe is wrong, it does not mean that they have used their power to somehow change the truth.

[ostrophene]

yes. the point of my post was that Foucault, rightly or wrongly, has a clear delineation of what counts as fact and what counts as Fact. we can freely debate the ideological implications of THAT division. but he does not - and this is my point - throw the baby of reliable objective reference out with the bathwater of ideological knowledge formation.