Right let's hash this out, because I've just started an International Relations course and I asked the tutor which model the course literature takes mostly into account and he name dropped this frog, so I need to know was he right or is he a hack?
What were his main points? Everything is a social construct? Doesn't that fly in the face of biological research?
Other urls found in this thread:
Not a hack unless you ask a conservashit
Start with Discipline and Punish, once you get comfortable the History of Sexuality is his real nigga shit
He's one of if not the most influential contributor to social constructivism theory, yes.
Foucault is a bit further left than Chomsky, and totally denies the validity of a universal human nature, and especially of absolute values.
Social constructivism, rather than critical theory, are some of the biggest weaknesses that persist in the left today, so in a way he's the best asset to reactionary intelligentsia, for citing the complete facile excesses that the New Left has grown.
>t. lefty
Does his lifestyle cloud peoples perception of his work? It seems that people think he worked backwards to explain away his feeling like an outcast. Also there is some noise about him playing fast and loose with historical facts, and his methodology was based on examining history right?
Can you explain the concept of a universal human nature? Do you mean he didn't think humans had any built-in traits etc?
It comes up in plain language in his debate with the Gnoam:
chomsky.info
>But to say that these regularities are connected, as conditions of existence, to the human mind or its nature, is difficult for me to accept: it seems to me that one must, before reaching that point-and in any case I am talking only about the understanding-replace it in the field of other human practices, such as economics, technology, politics, sociology, which can serve them as conditions of formation, of models, of place, of apparition, etc. I would like to know whether one cannot discover the system of regularity, of constraint, which makes science possible, somewhere else, even outside the human mind, in social forms, in the relations of production, in the class struggles, etc.
I'm going to be totally honest and say he doesn't explain himself very well, and in an incredibly roundabout way relative to German Marxists like Adorno.
*tries to legalize pedophillia in your path*
What was his problem?
His problem was that Socrates made some bad assumptions and he was around to find where the consequences unfold.
camus - based
debord - based
sartre - shit
foucault - SHIT
He's not a hack but he's overrated.
He absolutely is a hack, his work is impenetrable word salad and his rejection of empiricism means nothing he "discovered" has any basis in reality. You can't prove facts about reality using words, only observation can do that.
Is that Vin Diesel?
You are a hack as well
Typical PoMo non-argument.
The allegory of the cave is the beginning of the truth. And you think it can be quantified. You are a hack.
Typical PoMo word salad.
you are a name-calling hack
Typical PoMo projection.
Fuck off curtis
Typical reactionary who has a poor understanding of language beyond “make your bed”. Useless you argue with brainchildren.
i like the peterson smear, very fresh.
he's not a hack but his 90% of his devotees are