What was his endgame?

>>8369873
destruction of western civilisation

>>8369873

AIDs and/or a Liberal/Leftie bastardisation of Nietzsche.

>>8369873
your asshole

Acceptance of bath house shenanigans.

>>8369873
power bottom

File: Bild-Michel-Foucault.jpg (57KB, 500x618px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x618px

>I wasn't always smart, I was actually very stupid in school ... [T]here was a boy who was very attractive who was even stupider than I was. And in order to ingratiate myself with this boy who was very beautiful, I began to do his homework for him—and that's how I became smart, I had to do all this work to just keep ahead of him a little bit, in order to help him. In a sense, all the rest of my life I've been trying to do intellectual things that would attract beautiful boys.

File: Headquarters of Benito Mussolini and the Italian Fascist Party.jpg (193KB, 1112x772px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1112x772px

to make people go "hol up, what can we learn from history?"

such as don't elect nationalistic narcissists with populist messages who fear-mongers and is receiving attention for his meme-like eccentricism which people find refreshing
hmmmmmmmmmm
does kinda make you think........

>>8370292

Surely the lesson is that we SHOULD elect these people.

>>8370306
Hello Nick Land, this is dog.

Foucault had two really good ideas: the arbitrariness of the (historical) forces that create and sustain epistemic and discursive formations, and pouvoir-savoir (power-knowledge). These critical methods or outlooks are genuinely great, both for regular scholarly study of the history of ideas and knowledge-practices, and for Foucault's stated political goal of furthering the Kantian critique of the possibility of knowledge by rejecting ahistorical categories of thought and emphasising Nietzschean, historicist genetic perspectivism (in genealogy or the "chemistry" of concepts).

He fucks up mostly because his brilliance and success at applying his critical outlook lead him to overstate it drastically. This is pretty standard for geniuses who have an amazingly arresting Anschauung. It tends eventually to dominate their thought. Foucault denied ALL meaning and descended into a kind of super-relativism where he ostensibly cares about "people" (I don't want to say "subjects"), but you have to wonder why, since any ontological commitment is apparently historically contingent and therefore (?) cognitively limiting.

But it's also because of the nature of French intellectual society in two respects. First, the Parisian milieu is just plain given to outlandish rhetorical flourishes and overarching philosophical declarations pushed to extremes. Where the Anglos become too narrow and modest and get caught up in empirical analysis, the French write an empirically laughable 400-page magnum opus ex tempore, based on an underlying idea, and become famous for it anyway because the idea is so damn pretty. Second, the Parisian intelligentsia at Foucault's time was taken with Hegel, especially under Foucault's teacher Jean Hippolyte, and with (post-Heideggerian) hermeneutic phenomenology. Foucault's reaction against both was needlessly strong and overstated, though his critiques are still important.

Ironically Foucault's oeuvre suffers from unstable implicit ontological commitments. But he probably would have liked that instability, and it probably fits in with his ethical goals. You have to take his oeuvre as a living thing, up your butt.

>>8369873
boipucci