/foucault/

Nobody ever calls him a fascist, a logician, or a conservative. I think that's all that I need to know about him. As much as I think that diving into Foucault is the equivalent of performing an intellectual lobotomy, I don't have much sympathy for his detractors, who were probably insufferable and unimaginative.

>People in this thread that are into "philosophy" but are counting out someone because of ideology

Last 4 years of his lectures, the order of things,

i know this is false flagging but what do you all actually mean when you call someone a cultural marxist? do you mean they are cultural relativists? that they want to eliminate the hierarchial status between cultures?

The height of anti-intellectualism.

Dicipline and Punish, History of Sexuality - if you want to understand the academic obsession with him.
But I recommend you read his Collége de France lectures instead which are brilliant. Start with Punitive Society and read up to at least The Birth of Biopolitics. After that he gets into Ancient Greeks and Romans which is kinda boring except for The Hermeneutics of the Subject.

was he even left-wing?

stale meme and no, he wasn't

>I heard some people call him this or that

>that's all that I need to know about him

This is herdsman extraordinaire!

Welcome to the right-wing's mentality

just remember, if you want to swallow his theories, do it and choke on them

but he was a total pleb in history, don't believe any garbage he says in that regard

>implying he wasn't the philosopher epithomizing true neo-liberalism
he was

Honestly the same thing happens on the left. I mean think about all the people that talked shit about Houellebecq without ever reading his work because it was ''Racist''.

rfeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEE!!!! >
fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucking peterson he doesnt even know postmodernism, I KNOW postmodernism as I just took an intro class 101 to it and im a freshman

He doesn't mean anything, he's just spewing buzzwords.
Hang yourself

Well you can start at www.BLACKED.com or at your local refugee reception center. Make donations to bring in and vote, buy a cuck cock cage and dont reproduce.

Sperg-tastic post, user!

Except that's a lie and you know it. The left historically were confortable with engaging with authors who held questionable positions, just look at Heidegger, Nietzsche (to an extent), Schmitt, etc.

It's a false equivalency, people aren't just as exclusionary on both sides. On principle, the left is more open-minded, as it is inherently opposition. Naturally, the establishment must protect itself and reaffirm itself, while the primary focus of the opposition is critique.

this^
also a homosexual who died of aids. all he did was make extremely pedestrian observations about "power structures" and then draw bad conclusions from those observations

>historically
That is a very important word in your statement.
>the left is more open-minded, as it is inherently opposition
How do you define ''Left''? Why do you think that it is the ''inherent opposition'' and opposition to what (the State? the Right? Society?)?

“Marxism exists in nineteenth-century thought like a fish in water: that is, it is unable to breathe anywhere else.”
Woah FOUCAULT said *THAT*

But he's a marksist man don't you pay attention what are you a Jew? You must be because you read focal you stupid

Yeah that permanent opposition thing is stupid. I agree with him that the left has been more tolerant and open to opposing views though. I couldn't point to a reason, though. Maybe because leftist ideas were usually spearheaded by intellectuals while their opposition follows a "might is right" dogma.

I'm obviously biased when I say that I don't associate contemporary mainstream liberals with leftist ideologies btw. A bunch of monkeys rallying around keywords commonly associated with the left at most. The right at least adheres to its simpler ideologies.

The socialists are somewhere in between. Hardcore commies are few these days but I respect their willingness to think, organize, and filter mindless followers.

bol

>tfw these threads always degenerate into two camps of morons: conspiratorial /pol/lacks leaving lazy one-liners about "cultural marxists," and ignorant english majors who haven't done any philosophy but pretend that they have

yes, only those with an extra-chromosome can appreciate foucault's genius, everyone else is in some false dichotomy you imagine

Homo-supremacist

>Giving a shit about opinion of a communist who tried to cause as much damage as possible to European culture.

Yeah no.

The Birth of the Clinic
The Order of Things
The Archaeology of Knowledge
The History of Sexuality
Alternatively watch youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8 and pretend like you know everything he has written to impress your internet friends.
Alternate 2: read nothing about him and smugly dismiss his work on Veeky Forums for dying of AIDs and because others called him post-modern so you can safely wank over being an internet crusader

It's not so much 'what he was talking about' as it as 'his underlying methods and techniques'. But k.

it's more prominent on the left

You have to go back