Why can I only get through, like, five pages of this book at

>>8278135
smoke meth before every attempt

>>8278135

Set it aside.

He Nietzsche'd into thinking that madness was some sort of state conspiracy against (certain) individuals, rather than a legitimate condition.

File: 12990948_1570585343234868_3053335738631822084_n.jpg (10KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x300px

>>8278153

>>8278153
>He Nietzsche'd into thinking that madness was some sort of state conspiracy against (certain) individuals, rather than a legitimate condition.

Well, no, I don't think that is what he's arguing so far. I think he's arguing that madness is a real thing, but society deems (or deemed) it fit to throw these people into asylums instead of just letting them go about their lives unmolested by the state.

>>8278350
You're on the right track.

This kind of opinion is real tho because the whole mental illness area is ridiculously politicised.

And Foucault ' s writing is dense as shit. You get used to it tho.

>>8278350

That's because they regularly push people onto train tracks, wank in public, that sort of thing. Half of the treatment of mentally ill people has been intended to prevent them from regularly being massacred by mobs. It's typical of the decline in French thought that Foucault got thirty years of material out of the sort of sheltered idealisation of the mentally ill that you snap out of by your late teens.

>>8279663
It's a "4chan user thinks he can debunk a celebrated work of philosophy by a respected philosopher with a reply" episode

>>8278135

ASK YOURSELF THIS ONE QUESTION -

ARE YOU LIT ENOUGH

Nothing wrong with that, OP. Some books are just harder than others.

>>8278135
It's like how people are with math. They see it as this super tough painful thing and so it is, in fact, super tough and painful and they get tired just doing such as basic differential equations. But it's not really hard at all. If you can defeat your notion of the book being difficult and just plow through it with a sense of carefree abandon, you will see this is true for Foucault and other philosophers also.

>>8278135
Because it is pendulous

>>8281355

this works for poststructuralism, I find, because those thinkers are trying to give an "impression" of thought that by its very nature tries to escape syntax. but if you try to engage dialectical thought this way, you will be profoundly lost every 10th page.

>>8278135
Much like Hegel, Foucault is faulted with verbiage. The guy can't write for shit

>>8281348
I suppose so, but still, it's still a bit excessively complicated at times.

>>8281979
I wouldn't say he can't write, I'd just say he write a bit too complexly at times.