Michel Foucault

What's the tl;dr on Foucault? Apparently libertarians love him?

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://noehernandezcortez.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nietzsche-genealogy-history.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi__7_h6LDYAhVCGt8KHTa6ANEQFghKMAQ&usg=AOvVaw1mqVHEN1sM1x8s_SoZyVbO
cchrcambodia.org/admin/media/news/news/english/The_Economist_Behind_the_Khmer_Rouge.pdf
thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/
cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.PDF
monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

he was a big fan of pendulums

Is that a gay joke?

Very good, here read him yourself

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://noehernandezcortez.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nietzsche-genealogy-history.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi__7_h6LDYAhVCGt8KHTa6ANEQFghKMAQ&usg=AOvVaw1mqVHEN1sM1x8s_SoZyVbO

Foucault was a kind of revolutionary libertarian communist. (Foucault vs Chomsky)

In his activism he was actually revolutionary and worthwhile.

His academic writing is largely shit, and he knew this, he played the French game. The CIA later made use of his writing to attack the structuralist premises of Tankie and post-Tankie marxism.

Foucault's political views were anti-ethical, historicist, pro-proletarian. This comes out in his writings. Imagine Althusser's ethics, with Thompson's historicism, and a party cadre's ability to conduct historical research.

He wipes the floor with Chomsky on inherent categories of mind and the ethical responsibility to support the proletariat. 2-0 match.

Pretty good

>like just be whatever you want man, unless I don't like it
Can we stop the shameless worship of old cows.
Firstly they have no original ideas they are only parroting older ideas but lay claim to them because they have found some "missing link" between one perspective and another.
Secondly none of them actually present a solution, they will tear down your house because the architecture was poorly constructed but then when you ask them where you should go they shrug and point to a blueprint of the ideal house, when you ask where it is they say you still have to build it.

I don't know if we still kill intellectuals for being wrong on everything, but if we don't I think we should revive the practice for Foucault.

>Can we stop the shameless worship of old cows.
Supplying an exegesis is worship? Who shat in your fucking wheetbix mate?

>Firstly they have no original ideas
And, so? What is deficient in the representation of old ideas, or, for that matter, ensuring you'll be employed in a competitive academic system?

>Secondly none of them actually present a solution
We left off the presentation of solutions somewhere around Spinoza mate. All we expect is the articulate presentation of problems.

As far as Thesis 11 goes, Foucault did a better job than most as a human being.

>I don't know if we still kill intellectuals for being wrong on everything
Did we universally kill them in the past? "Still" applies to your state of knowledge, not the killing.

By the way, Pol Pot's "solution" was presented as a doctoral thesis: cchrcambodia.org/admin/media/news/news/english/The_Economist_Behind_the_Khmer_Rouge.pdf

>We left off the presentation of solutions somewhere around Spinoza mate. All we expect is the articulate presentation of problems
Doesn't say something of your thought if all you can do is criticise?

Speaking to my friend who seems to like some of Foucault's writing, he always criticises society without solution. I understand criticism for criticism's sake, which can be enlightening and entertaining, but shouldn't one think of problems from a different framework in order to make some headway?

He probably just googled Focault and got the wrong Focault.

discipline and punish argues that expressions of power have diffused into society after moving from a regime of corporal punishment (executions) to disciplinary measures (panopticons, trying to mould prisoners behaviour in 1800s-early 1900s) and finally to his idea of biopower where the state controls who lives and dies and uses this to keep power,being assisted in doing so by various technologies of oppression which justify putting withholding things from certain people, for example, racism

Reminder that Foucault ADMITTED he was only in it for the bussy:

>I wasn't always smart, I was actually very stupid in school ... [T]here was a boy who was very attractive who was even stupider than I was. And in order to ingratiate myself with this boy who was very beautiful, I began to do his homework for him—and that's how I became smart, I had to do all this work to just keep ahead of him a little bit, in order to help him. In a sense, all the rest of my life I've been trying to do intellectual things that would attract beautiful boys.

Sartre and de Beauvoir were also sex crazed perverts as well, it seems like all these trendy pomo thinkers are. It's almost as if their (((philosophy))) was just a pick up game to get impressionable students in the sack. It really makes you think.

To be fair Foucault did die of AIDS, so it's not like he won in the end

...

degenerate Western puppet scumbag

>Doesn't say something of your thought if all you can do is criticise?

It says something about the nature of thought itself.

>Speaking to my friend who seems to like some of Foucault's writing, he always criticises society without solution. I understand criticism for criticism's sake, which can be enlightening and entertaining, but shouldn't one think of problems from a different framework in order to make some headway?

As I noted, the last time people tried "social engineering" they attempted to kill every viet, glasses wearer and literate person the state was capable of laying its hands upon.

The time before that resulted in the elevation of The Gang of Four after a number of social discontents in China.

The time before that resulted in the liquidation of millions of Europeans due to their "race."

The time before that gave us our friend Stalin and his -ism.

People are wary of offering social solutions, because the easiest response to come to hand is often, "Why not kill them all?" For some reason people—particularly the people who it is suggested ought be killed—dislike this.

What the fuck, are you telling me people DONT like being killed? The fuck.

>The CIA later made use of his writing to attack the structuralist premises of Tankie and post-Tankie marxism

Ok you're going to have to give me some sources here

it's pretty well known that po-mo philosophy has been at least a coincidental asset to the anti-marxist powers that be

thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/

Primary Source
cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.PDF

the CIA funded modern art to attack socialist realism too
>One of the most important and fascinating discussions in Saunders’ book is about the fact that CIA and its allies in the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) poured vast sums of money into promoting Abstract Expressionist (AE) painting and painters as an antidote to art with a social content. In promoting AE, the CIA fought off the right-wing in Congress. What the CIA saw in AE was an “anti-Communist ideology, the ideology of freedom, of free enterprise. Non-figurative and politically silent it was the very antithesis of socialist realism” (254). They viewed AE as the true expression of the national will. To bypass right-wing criticism, the CIA turned to the private sector (namely MOMA and its co-founder, Nelson Rockefeller, who referred to AE as “free enterprise painting.”) Many directors at MOMA had longstanding links to the CIA and were more than willing to lend a hand in promoting AE as a weapon in the cultural Cold War. Heavily funded exhibits of AE were organized all over Europe; art critics were mobilized, and art magazines churned out articles full of lavish praise. The combined economic resources of MOMA and the CIA-run Fairfield Foundation ensured the collaboration of Europe’s most prestigious galleries which, in turn, were able to influence aesthetics across Europe.

monthlyreview.org/1999/11/01/the-cia-and-the-cultural-cold-war-revisited/

Woah, woah, woah.

Fixing social problems doesn't necessarily call for social engineering or killing people.

For example the social problem of drug addiction can be attempted to be solved via laws regarding the usage and selling of drugs, it doesn't mean we have to go around killing addicts and dealers.

This very much exemplifies the problem with Foucault and the new left. That institutions such as the law are viewed as structures of oppression and not tools to be utilised to solve problems in various fashions that may or may not appeal to various ideologies.

>are viewed as
Justify your view to the satisfaction of Spinoza, Hume, Kant.

You can't.

Why.
Not.
Kill.
Them.
All?

And thus Foucault's critique of biopolitics, as specious as it is for someone who wants to burn policemen.

Foucault is utterly boring, not a good historian and a mediocre theorist. He was original in his time, but after everyone started copying his hackneyed social historical model about discipline and power and became too much. Because of his popularity he is kinda responsible for the immence mediocrity that exists in social sciences today and the infestation of it by SJW's. Also I don't know how do people call him a radical socialist or leftist in any way, later during his life became involved in libertatrian philosophy and had a hand in some union-reform in France.

Foucault is kinda outdated because even he admitted that Biopolitics reffers to a speciffic moment in western history. It is one moment in western political history among others and reffers from the time of the creation of welfare state by Bismarck up untill the 80's. He realised this and started working on other topics like neo-liberalism and sexuality. Later in his life he was more open to new ideas but at the cost of utterly betraying the left. Some anarchists read him and think they have found a new Bakunin , but that is not the case at all, he was instead the proto-typical sjw refformer.

>1968
>Unions didn't need reform.

Fuck you tankie. Standing in the way of revolution again. Just like in Prague.

Why not kill them all? Simple.

Because that would cause even more social problems, wouldn't it now?

Given that "society" is for some clique, rather than for the self-emancipatory proletariat (thesis 11), I'm more satisfied with Foucault's anti-moralism against Chomsky on the issue of proletarian self-activity. (Captcha: DRVN Abbie)

Infantile post.

You speak of anti-moralism then emphasise that society as a whole is less important than this transitory proletariat you speak of. What makes the proletariat important further than your own opinion?

Of course it can also be said that society is important to me only because of my arbitrary concern, but that was the framework that my friend and I agreed to emphasise, and Foucault falls flat in that regard.

Who knows, Chomsky's thought may be inferior to Foucault's, but it's not like I hold his in high regard either.

the original SJW.. everything is oppression, everyone is gay

convince me that he is anything more than the typical french socialist "intellectuals" from the post war era that was just a pervert who projected his own sexual insecurities onto everyone who disagreed with him