Just finished this. My first dig into Foucault, or philosophy

But why would you trust his writing on power structures? He is not a scientist who has developed sociological theories empirically and methodically. You don't take it seriously, right?

Right?

I read the first page or so and found it extremely entertaining

how erudite/dense is this work? it seems accessible from the 1 minute I spent reading it

>>8362152
Throughout I was doubting nearly everything he was saying as there was so. much. rhetoric. but regardless of how much stock I put in his ideas, they were interesting at least.

For fuck's sake though why does philosophy have to have such verbose prose.

>>8362159
The first page does start off with a bang! Foucault indulges the reader in a graphic scene of 17th (?) century public torture with very visual descriptions of flesh being turned from the body etc. Wouldn't say it's very accessible but what kind of reading do you do otherwise? That is, do you read a lot of philosophical texts?

>>8362162

>For fuck's sake though why does philosophy have to have such verbose prose.

Stop reading French pseudo-intellectuals, get your ass onto the analytic train

>>8362162

>do you read a lot of philosophical texts

exactly the opposite

I was looking for something that isn't too referential or analytical, some pop-philosophy thing. Guess I'll have to keep looking.

>>8362152
>>8362159
To build on this a little more, he often makes connections that don't seem supported by any relevant citations he's drawing from, or the citations lend themselves only to a certain part of his thinking. Furthermore, he often rephrases what certain quotes say in his own words, before the quote even occurs in the text, which seems like they would lend him some authority, but not to me.

>>8362169
Man, I'm also a Spanish speaker and I could see the liberal Romance syntax making the English translation blocky while I was reading. It was frustrating. Often it seemed like verbs were plural nouns, like certain verbs didn't agree in plurality with the subject they were referring to--made reading this even more difficult.

What would you recommend for an extremely new philosopher reader in the analytic school? I wouldn't be opposed to what I understand to be other post-structuralists (in fact I'm thinking of finally reading some Judith Butler because of her frequent references to Foucault), but I'd be down to give some analytics a try!

File: analyticsbtfo.jpg (30KB, 497x413px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 497x413px

>>8362169
>the analytic train

>>8362185

If you can handle edginess, Russell is a very good starting point in analytics.

File: analytics4.jpg (49KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 800x800px

>>8362260

>>8362266

Did I hurt your feelings? Why don't you go write an unintelligible deconstructionist book about it

File: analytics3.jpg (36KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x667px

>>8362278
>he thinks Badiou is a deconstructionist!

Pic related, analytic philosophy.

>>8362295

Wow, you sure showed me with that picture from meme facebook groups run by state school english majors

File: derrida.jpg (13KB, 221x308px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 221x308px

>>8362301
>he's privileging a mythic point of origin!

File: John Searle.jpg (26KB, 313x343px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 313x343px

>>8362303

>Thus, if the conceptual paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose
between capitalist desituationism and subcapitalist discourse. The conceptual
paradigm of narrative holds that narrativity is capable of intent.

File: 1373853041871.gif (858KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 240x228px

>>8362325
>narrativity is capable of intent

Is this what Analytics really believe?

>>8362152
>not accepting his genealogy as a valid method
Sure is plebian today.

>>8362144
Foucalt loved Nietzsche who does this in his Genealogy of Morals; it's a lot less "here is my argument, and this event proves it" and a lot more painting pictures to get you to see from different perspectives.

>>8362171
Why waste time? Watts and Jung are the only pop philosophers with any merit, if you want dumber than that you may as well buy Tony Robbins books.