Foucalt

2) While I acknowledge that power is not restricted to authoritative/governing/institutional power and that influence/power can
be much more subtle, it also seems quite handy to be able to redefine the motivation you want to blame in such a way that it
is easier to claim this motivation to be the primary force. For example, if I am being unknowingly observed in a professional
setting by a younger employee, and I do an excellent/shitty job in such a way that the younger employee wants to strive for
excellence or adopt my shittyness, I have influenced this person, ie exerted power. How can that be an exertion of power
when I didn't even know I exerted it? This seems to indicate that Foucault does not consider power merely a motivation,
which kind of ruins Petersons argument, does it not?

3) Foucault talks about resisting power when it feels intolerable to the subject. I admit I am not well versed in philosophy,
but if you're defining power as something everyone in society exerts onto you and you're advocating resistance based on subjective
emotions, it seems to me we're getting in to pathological territory where everyone is a potential enemy and you are the only
authority on what is legitimate resistance. He also puts emphasis on breaking with norms and taboos as an essential part of
such resistance, which seems like he presupposes that norms and taboos do not have any value other than mechanisms for exerting
power. Is that correct tl,dr of his stance on this? If so, it seems a bit dishonest as these norms have played an important role
in the survival and proliferation of humanity. How wrong am I about this?

4) Is it valid to point out that when Foucault acted out his resistance, he did so in a manner that ultimately killed him,
and to claim that if living out his philosophy results in death, he essentially BTFO'd himself? (He basically wanted to go
all out with sexual behaviour that went against the norm and eventually died from AIDS.) Or is that a cheap shot?

>>3256819
>If so, wouldn't that mean that every interaction you have with every person is inevitably a form of power struggle?

Not only on a personal level but on discrete bits of reality aka quanta. Information trying to leverage itself against other information in weird and innumerable games.

And wiser than your question is
"Most humans are faggots."

The ones who decry power are the ones who would abuse it. The ones who have power abuse it. The ones who don't know about power would abuse it if it fell into their hands.

I think the usage of "power" was sort of a messy box Foucalt put various and ambiguous (alas, not distinct as per the continental style) concepts. Like putting shirts in a box with overcoats, socks, and suspenders already in. It's messy and almost useless.

>to claim that if living out his philosophy results in death, he essentially BTFO'd himself?

Humans like to be faggots of the mundane. He was a gay hedonist who wanted sex. He didn't know about AIDS. It's not a cheap shot but it's a shot that applies to a lot of men. It's the punishment of a mechanical god to humiliate those who try to put the will, to pleasure and ecstasy, over the constraints and dangers of a world.

And put your friend in a black majority neighborhood. That will do more to get him to the right than any words. You have to SEE what humans are about. You will not understand by watching WEIRD* people lecture to other WEIRD people. Because most of the world isn't WEIRD.

* - Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic

File: Peterson everything I don't like is Marxism.jpg (44KB, 500x645px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x645px

>>3256819
>>/lit/