Thread replies: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Foucault5.jpg (15KB, 244x300px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 244x300px
When did you realize he surpassed Nietzsche?
Where Nietzsche renounced, Foucault built.
Where Nietzsche gave heady advice, Foucault scrutinized.
Where Nietzsche wrote personally, Foucault wrote for all.
>>
>Nietzsche died of syphilis
>Foucault died of AIDS
whoa, the student took after the master
>>
>When did you realize he surpassed Nietzsche?
When Heidegger had done it
>>
>>9258294
Heidegger's reading of Nietzsche is knowingly limited to serve his own purposes.
Heidegger is the real deal though.
>>
>>9258482
That describes every philosopher's reading of their predecessor. They use them as a jumping point, and say "so and so was great, but they got this one thing wrong which I'm going to correct and improve on and therefore become THE BEST"
Realtalk though it makes me giggle that people on /lit/ and elsewhere suck Nietzsche's cock all day but poo-poo all his heirs.
>>
>>9258502
>that describes every philosopher's reading of their predecessor.
Sort of a fair point. I prefer Graham Harmon's take, that no philosophy is refuted, only abandoned.
But just to be a little more specific here, Heidegger has a wonderfully thorough and consequential read of Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Husserl, et al., but his reading of Nietzsche has been noted to be conspicuously narrow.
The idea is that he didn't want to deal with the kickback of reading Nietzsche more fully, and so knowingly chose to follow an interpretation that fit with his own ideas.
I can't quite recall exactly how to characterize this narrow interpretation. Been a few years since I was studying Heidegger. But the point I'm making is general consensus among many Heideggerians.
Nietzsche is great, but, yeah, fugg the cock sucking.
>>
>Implying Foucault and Nietzsche weren't both the imps that herald Zarathustra's coming but are not Zarathustra
>Implying I'm not Zarathustra
>Implying I'm not speaking
>>
>>9258792
>implying zarathustra speaks
>implying he does not sing
>>
File: images.jpg (3KB, 99x132px) Image search:
[Google]
3KB, 99x132px
>>9258792
>But pray tell, Zarathustra, what is the excellence in singing?
>>
>>9258591
>but his reading of Nietzsche has been noted to be conspicuously narrow.
By whom? Could you provide a source to back up your claims, instead of telling us about 'Heideggerians' in the abstract and studies that you performed years ago?
>>
>>9258264
>power is oppressive, we should do what we can to become aware of it and eliminate it
>but pls stop at Marxism, that's off limits
His most insightful comment was that without oppression there is no meaning, which he said on accident when trying to go too French.
>>
>>9258962
>eliminate it
I don't think you get Foucault as well as you think.
>>
>>9258962
>without oppression there is no meaning
Foucault was fucking on-point when he wanted to be. What book is this from?
Thread posts: 14
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2