Foucault.

>>1658624
Literally nothing.
A perfect example of where disregarding moral self restraint for degeneracy will get you.

>>1658624
Fashion sense.

>>1658624
Literally everything.
A perfect example of throwing off absolutist bullshit for free thinking will get you.

>>1658624
>What did he get right?

[COLAPSE]

>>1658634
Care to explain?

>>1658714
He did wear pretty nice clothing (besides turtlenecks)

>>1658624
That the op is a homosexual but only since the 19th century.
Before the 19th century op was just a guy who liked dicks.

>>1658768
His entire philosophy revolved around the pursuit of physical pleasure and letting go of 'petty morality'.
He then died of AIDS he acquired in a bathhouse.
Utter fucking degenerate who's own life discredits his 'philosophy'.

>>1658782
>His entire philosophy

I haven't read all of his works yet, but I'd have to disagree. It was more about power and the way in which power is enforced rather than purely the self.

AIDS wasn't really a thing at the time so no one knew about it.

>>1658782
He had little interest in normative philosophy of the kind you see in second-rate American unis. His books about pleasure (I'm guessing you are referring to Care of the Self and History of Sexuality) were historical projects and should be judged as such.

>>1658768

Now I can't stand most of his work, but the man could dress.

Turtlenecks are hype, too. Get yourself a good fitting black one to match with a grey blazer.

File: abyss.jpg (72KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1280x720px

>>1658794
>write your aids infested fantasy world
>put history in the title

power relationships, they be everywhere

>>1658792
There were plenty of other nasty diseases.
Point is that he wanted to 'deconstruct' everything in society, and he ended up deconstructing the sexual morality he was taught precisely to protect him from things like AIDS.
I have no sympathy for a man that disregards all tradition and authority and simply lives for his own pleasure. The old morality was there for a reason, as he clearly discovered.

>>1658832
Except old morality had nothing to do with protecting people from AIDS, which didn't even exist.

>>1658867
I think he means the 'old morality' of not having sex with the same sex.

>>1658867
On all level except physical, aids did not exist

dies from aids

>>1658894
>>1658867
Pretty sure he means "Don't go around having sex with everyone you can, or there will be consequences".

Just because back when that became an aesop the "consequences" were
>pregnancy, fatherhood, and a vain and fruitless pursuit of pleasure as you continuously seek fulfillment from wanton sex yet lose more and more of your ability to form stable happy relationships and becoming increasingly jaded and unhappy

Doesn't mean the aesop still doesn't apply now that the "consequences" are
>fatherhood and pregnancy, or anal prolapse, HIV, AIDS, gonorrhea, and a vain and fruitless pursuit of pleasure as you continuously seek fulfillment from wanton sex yet lose more and more of your ability to form stable happy relationships and becoming increasingly jaded and unhappy

>>1658894
Except a certain minority of people were always having sex with the same sex. The only thing that changed was homosexuality being crystallized into a persecuted identity and at the same time major institutions becoming homosexual in all but the final act.
Foucault was never pro or anti homosexuality. That was not his project and such moronic moralizing is more fitting for an advice column than philosophy.

>>1658924
>Foucault was never pro or anti homosexuality.
>Foucault was literally gay and was a gay rights activist

>>1658867
The old morality meant protecting people from the dangers of wanton pursuit of sexual pleasure.
The consequences of which included, but were not limited to, syphilis (can be fatal), chlamydia and gonorrhea (infertility), warts and parasites (can lead to incontinence) long before AIDS came along. He died of the newest and shiniest disease but the old morality would have saved him from it just the same.
Instead he followed his dick, and died.

>>1658919
Good thing we invented Condoms then.

>>1658924
>Moralising isn't philosophy
Back into your post-modernist hole.

>>1658952
>we

>>1658952
>implying condoms protect you from all venereal diseases
>implying promiscuous people, particularly homosexuals, regularly use condoms
Come one now anon.

>>1658952
Which offers a DEGREE of protection, yes, but is not 100% effective. We can rest a little easier on the pregnancy and fatherhood issue, not as easy on HIV, AIDS, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc but still a little easier.

There's still the issue of anal prolapse and a vain and fruitless pursuit of pleasure as you continuously seek fulfillment from wanton sex yet lose more and more of your ability to form stable happy relationships and becoming increasingly jaded and unhappy.

>>1658624
Nothing because his reading of History is highly biaised to fit his theories.

>>1658772
Kek

>>1658832
>>Point is that he wanted to 'deconstruct' everything in society, and he ended up deconstructing the sexual morality
yes morality is constructed and only people who constructed it will whine about the deconstruction

>>1658624
He somehow managed to convince a few circles that anti intellecutalism is the way to level the playing field
His philosophy in my opinion is the single greatest affront to the importance of education ever put forward.
A moron in every sense of the word.

The relationship between knowledge and power, in the form of discourse. The thing is, his Nietzschean conclusion and ethics led him to think 'anything goes as long as it's power' aka biopower, which I disagree with because it's totally false.

If we give example of his AIDS-ridden life in order to criticize him, then it wouldn't really hurt his philosophy. In fact, he died capable of doing whatever he wanted, which is certainly a win for himself. But the inability to rationally convince the outside, might give the impression that the outsider secluded himself, which eventually render his own self meaningless. It's because the struggle is itself what brings forward the notion, not power from self-overcoming (from the inside). In this regard, Foucault remained unable to postulate a sufficiently consistent and rational standpoint upon which one differentiates itself from another completely.

Still a great one. Quite understandable within the climate at the time. Overrated, but then again who isn't nowadays?

That putting a prisoner in charge of the panopticon still leaves us as prisoners.

Also anything that pisses off /pol/acks this much has to be good. I think I'll read more about the man and his work.