Who is the biggest hack in Philosophy and why is it Foucault?

Wtf are you talking about? Foucault was based. The only people who have an issue with him are people who don't read philosophy because they love wisdom but because they need their political/social views validated

Foucault's eureka moment was reading Nietzsche's Untimely Meditations. Nietzsche argued that academics had poisoned our sense of how history should be read and taught. They made it seem as if one should read history in some sort of disinterested way, in order to learn how it all was in the past. But Nietzsche rejected this with sarcastic fury. There was no point learning about the past for its own sake. The only reason to read and study history is to dig out from the past ideas, concepts and examples which can help us to lead a better life in our own times. Is there anyone on Veeky Forums who disagrees with that, and thinks history should be a bunch of autists arbitrarily stacking shit in ascending order?

In Madness and Civilization Foucalt argued that people with mental health issues had it better in the renaissance than they did in modern times because in the renaissance the mentally deficient were simply seen as different, where as in the modern era we see them as being broken and in need of being "cured", so rather than give them gainful employment as jesters and funnymen supported by a community, they were corralled into asylums and forced to undergo cruel treatment which didn't actually make them better, verses nowadays where we simply lock them in prison and call it justice

In Birth of the Clinic he critiques modern medicine for being reactionary and dehumanizing, treating people not as a cohesive individual but as a collection of parts, and when one goes bad you take a pill or have the treatment and consider yourself "cured" without addressing the underlying causes that led to the condition in the first place. Before modern medicine people had to take a long term outlook on their health in order to prevent those kind of things from happening

In Discipline and Punish he argues that while justice was harsh and cruel in the past, it was out in the open and people were aware of it, and the state and executioner became the locus of shame. With the invention of modern prisons, the state could hide its cruelty from the eyes of the public, permitting far worse abuses of power. In the past criminals were simply executed, but now we lock them in a small box with another criminal for the rest of their bleak, miserable existence, prolonging their suffering for decades at the taxpayer's expense.

In the History of Sexuality he argues that in modern times we've medicalized sex, turning it over to researchers who try to quantify sex like it was any other human behavior like shitting or learning how to walk, and then are convinced that the female orgasm doesn't exist despite the collective face-palm of anybody who's actually gotten laid. Foucault looked back in nostalgia to the cultures of Rome, China and Japan where he detected the rule of what he called an ars erotica (“erotic art”) where the whole focus was on how to increase the pleasure of sex rather than merely label it and write a "sex by the numbers" textbook. Once again, modernity was blamed for pretending there’d been progress, when there was just loss of spontaneity and imagination.

Academic historians have tended to hate Foucault’s work. They think it is inaccurate and keep pointing out things he hadn’t quite understood in some document or other. But Foucault didn’t care for total historical accuracy. History for him was just a storehouse of good ideas and he wanted to raid it, rather than keep it pristine, and untouched.

I was talking about the French faggot, Chomsky is pretty clear.

Are you retarded? He does the exact opposite.

You're trying to hard bro.

>You're trying to hard bro.
Lol he literally copy pasted it for. The school of life transcript. thebookoflife.org/michel-foucault/?utm_source=You Tube&utm_medium=You Tube - michel foucault - video description - TBOL Article&utm_campaign=You Tube - michel foucault - video description - TBOL Article

t.Brainlet pretending he's not.

All of Foucault's paradigms are based on cherry picking and poor logic though, that's why people laugh at him!

>Mad people had it better in medieval times, therefore...
Stop right there buddy, show me empirically that this is a fact. He goes so far as to say madness was seen as a sign of divinity which is pure bullshit outside of the fringest of fringe cases.

Also
>what is Hume's Guillotine

We still have this guy.

Foucault isn't too bad compared to FUCKING LACAN and FUCKING DERRIDA.
Foucault does have some good points and isn't 100% charlatan

You either love wisdom or you don't

Do you have a better source or are you suggesting that I would be better off trusting the opinions of anonymous assholes on the internet?

I noticed that you don't actually have anything to say about his major points or why they may or may not be wrong, you just have ad hominems,

Everything was considered "god's way" back then. The divine right of kings was literally their way of answering the question "why does he deserve to rule?" "Because god made it that way". They didn't have scientific-rational explanations for natural phenomena until modern times

What relevance does that have to my post?

You asked for evidence that people considered madness a mark of he divine, and I gave you a well known example of how people thought back in the day: not thinking in terms of "what natural phenomena caused this", but rather "things are the way they are because God made it that way, that's his divine plan. Trying to change things would be going against God's will".

There were no lunatic asylums during the middles ages, at least none that I've ever been made aware of

"Foucault argues that in Europe before the Enlightenment madness was relegated to the fringes of society but nonetheless seen as a type of divine wisdom engaged in dialogue with, and pointing out the foibles of, society. However, Merquior suggests that the historical record contradicts Foucault by showing that the insane were often imprisoned and treated cruelly long before the Enlightenment, that English philanthropist William Tuke and French physician Philippe Pinel did not "‘invent’ mental illness" but rather built on the work of predecessors, and furthermore the motives for creating insane asylums across Europe was nowhere near as uniform as Foucault implies. Merquior writes that, "Foucault’s epochal monoliths crumble before the contradictory wealth of the historical evidence."

Wow! I've watched school of life too!

99.9% of philosophers are pretty lucid once you're not a brainlet, the only thing you can really say is that some of them are overrated, but not out-and-out spouting meaningless gibberish

if you can't follow what these guys are more or less saying you're a brainlet i'm so sorry, that goes for even zizek and lacan, like for example lacan's presentation is insufferable but his ideas are fascinating

>"lacan's ideas are fascinating"
>calls others brainlets

bruh please this board is just meme kiddies stunting like they actually read

We'll aren't you special.

Do you see how makes an actual argument and backs it up by sourcing a notable thinker? Maybe that's the diversity of well-sourced opinion that I came to this thread to look for, rather than a bunch of drooling morons hating on him for his politics or personal life, who's kneejerk reaction is to personally attack people who disagree with them.