I know this board has a hate boner for Foucault, but I'm

>>9497978
Have you heard of Zygmunt Bauman?

>reading self-help books by a fucking turtle

>>9497991
>>9497978

Try reading Zygmunt Bauman's "Liquid Love"

Dunno if this will help you or not. Give it a skim first.

>>9498014
Actually I just read your post again, it's probably not going to help at all. Don't read it.

>>9497991
>>9498014
I've read a little of Bauman in the past and his ideas on the breakdown of existing social structures to allow for greater freedoms in post-modernity line up well with Beck's ideas on individualization and the risk society, but how does Foucault relate to these ideas? Foucault seems much more caught up in the structuralism present in his ideas of discourse and systems of knowledge whereas Bauman and Beck see traditional hierarchies like class breaking down in post-modernity.

>>9497978
>Does he say anything really intelligent
no

>>9498067
>>9497995

Can anyone that truly hates Foucault on this board (and I know there are plenty) actually explain to me what the hate is all about? I just don't understand it because it never seems well articulated.

Dunno much about Beck.

What do you mean by "maximizing the control that the individual can exert," also? What do you mean by "_their_ orientation of society?" Do you mean they study the way society does that, or they are being prescriptive about what it OUGHT to do? Wouldn't postmodern critics be more worried about society doing the exact opposite - reducing, constraining, circumscribing the meaningful action of the individual person?

If you're looking for the decline of rationalism vis-a-vis the individual, you probably want his very late work, right before his death: _The Care of the Self_ and _Hermeneutics of the Subject._

If you ask me, Foucault's "turn" toward antiquity is his final phase, and constitutes a search for a positive, prescriptive ethics of how the individual ought to live, as opposed to his negative and critical archaeological-genealogical phases. It's also very similar to Heidegger in many regards. If you're familiar with Heidegger and with phronesis in general (which appears in other major critics of modernity too), it shouldn't be too hard to understand. But I think it presupposes a familiarity with Foucault's earlier work, including his archaeological period. If you're strapped for time, you might want to see if you an cheat your way through it by just tackling the _Hermeneutics of the Subject_ lectures with some kind of secondary source as a guide.

>>9497978
i bust out laughing at that quote, this french shit is just such an obvious fraud

>>9498263
Look at the very quote in OP's post.
Foucault is all about rehashing half-truths in a masturbatory way and then using (or allowing them to be used) in corrupt ways.
Let me know if that was too much of a tl;dr and you need it more "well articulated".

>>9498321
>>9498328

What's wrong with the quote? It seems fairly straightforward and acceptable to me.

>>9499799
It dismisses the possibility of truth as a quality rather than a tool. Truth can be an ideal we strive towards, but Foucault treats it merely as a means to an end. He completely rejects people who say that, for them, truth IS the end.

>>9499879
Mate. Corker of a response.

>>9499879
>It dismisses the possibility of truth as a quality rather than a tool

I don't know if it dismisses anything. He doesn't rebut, he asserts. I'm sure Foucault wouldn't argue that truth there are variations of truth. But he was concerned with the way "truth" is politicised.

>>9497978
How do leftists manage to say so much shit without it meaning anything at all?

>>9500886
Marijuana?

>>9500886
Same reason rightists do.

>>9499879
This

>>9500885
It's not "truth can be" and "truth sometimes is", it's "truth is": Yes, it dismisses.
>But he was concerned with the way "truth" is politicised
Which is why I said he rehashes half-truths in a masturbatory way.
EVERYONE knows that truth is politicised, since the first days of human societies. But the postmodernist angle was to convince people that's all truth ever is and thereby politicising it maximally: Someone made a scientific discovery? Nope, nothing to be seen, just another evil institution we need to get rid of. There's a study that children from traditional families grow up happier? Nope, clearly just a political truth from those in power.
The quote isn't entirely wrong and it creeps up to you fairly innocently but in its consequences it's a huge threat to society (and that's intended).

>>9500936
>EVERYONE knows that truth is politicised, since the first days of human societies.

You're being reductive. He doesn't mean it in that way and I think you know it.

Also, "is" isn't always used in an exclusive sense.

>but in its consequences it's a huge threat to society (and that's intended).

Pfft. How?

>>9500970
>You're being reductive
You gobbled up their shit well, didn't you

> He doesn't mean it in that way and I think you know it
He means it in exactly that way but "he doesn't really mean it that way" or "but he left himself an out there" has always been the excuse.

>oh yeah he talked about touching little kindergarden kids there BUT HE DIDNT REALLY MEAN IT, it was just a symbol/provocation/experiment...

>Also, "is" isn't always used in an exclusive sense.
Yeah - when people don't follow logic. I'm allowed to hold a "philosopher" accountable to logic, right?

>Pfft. How?
>How could it ever be dangerous to society to want to tear down society and build a utopia
>I mean yeah I explicitly say we need to get rid of all the old traditions and institutions and their representatives but how would that ever be a threat to anyone

File: foucault.jpg (97KB, 1010x551px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1010x551px

>>9498263
I think some of the areas Foucault looks at are interesting but he always looks at the wrong sources and doesn't have a conceptual framework that's conducive to actually generating a useful knowledge of the topics he investigates.