Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/05/02/introduction-to-foucault/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018

When you put up text for a quote could you please make that text readable while you're saying the quote (instead of having to wait for it to shrink to the right size and then read it after the fact).

Foucault knew it, informal power is destructive! People view politics as if it only mattered whether or not their candidate won, but this isn't who really is in charge. He who shapes the culture is the sovereign that gets to decide in what direction the country goes. Controlling discourse is much more important than being in office for a measely 4 years. I'd even go so far to argue that Mark Zuckerberg and the New York Times might even have more power than Donald Trump, in this regard.

@tralfamadorian5270

5 жыл бұрын

That's more Gramsci than Foucault. But well put.

@LunaticReason

3 жыл бұрын

Funny I came to that same conclusion long ago on my own and although I knew I wasn't the only one to come to this idea, it did not occur to me which famous philosopher penned it.

@hugobarrett63

3 жыл бұрын

@@tralfamadorian5270 I think Gramsci and Althusser were Foucault's predecessors. So, it is not a big deal.

@robertgould1345

2 жыл бұрын

In Foucault's analysis, there is no sovereign ruler either in front or behind the scenes. His historical analyses show that it's impossible for a single entity to control discourse. Even those who we think have power, such as media and technology moguls, are still subject to power as power comes from all directions and is not held by anyone. Power is instead channelled through technologies and our very bodies. The New York Times and our own body are equally sites of power/discourse and constructed by power/discourse.

@adaptercrash

Жыл бұрын

The emergence of sexuality and power without knowledge, or the emergence of sexuality in power based, political knowledge systems.

The editing in the torture and the prison schedule part was perfect

Truly an awesome channel! The quality is so good. I can't get enough of it. Curious to see what we get next week.

I've searched for a good interpretation of Foucault's works for a such a long time and finally found it. Great video !

This was really informative. The idea that some future society could un-invent our current concept of humanity ("man") is strange and difficult to think about. In a weird coincidence, I learned about Foucault's notion of punishing the soul for the first time just yesterday, in Dumpster Flower's "The Dark Side of Liberalism".

@ckckck12

3 жыл бұрын

The change of knowledge does not change the fact. Belief and reality are separate things.

@nasershahkarami7828

2 жыл бұрын

indeed sir

@zeke2408

2 жыл бұрын

Dumpster Flower's is fucking good.

ive been subscribed to this channel for awhile but havent taken the time to really focus and watch, im glad i did with this one

This is a superb summary of Foucauld with really great accompanying images, thank you for your great efforts.

The editing is insane! I'm really looking forward to watching more of ur videos :D

im supposed to write an essay about foucault for school and this video is really helpful for wrapping my head around the concept!!

This is amazing. Damn why is this channel not more followed

Hey, this was very insightful. It might be very interesting to follow this up with a critique of foucault's own methodology. I only know it from a historian's perspective, there at least a lot of criticism has emerged which challanges his statements for example about Greek and Roman sexuality. All in all you did a fantastic job though. I'll definitely share this to my best possibilties.

I was just looking in your playlists for this video lol hope the next one is about buadrillard

@nasershahkarami7828

2 жыл бұрын

lmao😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

"Foucault undermines so many common place political assumptions about how power functions". I was listening to this while reading comments and this quote from theory pleeb synced my internal reading voice with the audio. After listening to the whole thing I'm pretty sure I'll be stuck in a feedback loop of shifting mirror-mazes forever. MORE PLEASE

I was introduced to Foucault through his essay on the panopticon

This is fantastic. Easily the best video introducing Foucault.

I greatly enjoyed your choices of typeface

Oooh! The algorithm sent me here from Tom Nicholas' video on Foucault! I'm liking this so far! Thanks!!

Best intro on Foucault I’ve seen

Been meaming to watch this, Thank you!

Great videos. Very informative and easy to understand. I would really appreciate that you put together a transcript for each of the videos you have made and will make. It makes it more convenient to study from. I would be happy to exchange a transcript for a small fee. I am sure others would too.

I love this channel.. It is illuminating. Thank you .

I will admit my Foucault is rudimentary .. but from my student days in the 1980s I still remember "There's no right and wrong knowledge .. only legitimate and illegitimate knowledge for each set of power relations". To this day I prefer to be with people who share and nurture my curiosity rather than those who want to "tell it like it is".

@scottbuzz1

5 жыл бұрын

Do you mind, This specifically is a sticky point for me personally. I believe in the principle that direct honesty is the only thing someone aiming to collaborate with rather than compete with other people who find themselves at a similar disadvantage being a product of social engineering that curtails natural free growth can choose and still be honest. I truly am an idealist. But I'm smart enough to see that things are often valuable and logical which I judged initially as indecent or inhuman. Self righteous toxicity is hard to tolerate. I get it about who's more cheerful and puts a positive spin on things. But keep in mind that truth seeker is doing what most won't. Looking at the mess were in deeply to find out what why and how we came to be born into debt and what to do about it. It's just a bummer is all. But it's real. Swimming rather than sinking seems smart and will benefit one in many ways especially financially. But I'm sure you have to pay either way in time. Shock and lots of secure feeling with knowledge or if we lie to ourselves a fake foundation for our reality which will slowly kill us. . It may be annoying to be told about your prison cell by someone in shock from new knowledge of their own enslavement. But your experience is not going to be improved by spending time with liars. Whistling in the dark and justifying their own betrayal of their human family. Parasitic or psychopathic self preservation is nothing you want to glorify. Even if it is more fun. Unless you've no care for your ability to sleep and your karma.

Thanks a lot for these helpfull and imaginative video's! I'm a philosophy student and I think your documentaries are a great vivid summary (and maybe even extension) for the sometimes somewhat dry material in my books.

KZread is often filled with crap, this is not one of them. This is actually a very scholarly introduction to one of the most important figures of our time.

@antoniolima1068

3 жыл бұрын

important? we can clearly see the results of this scholars in our society, its easy to mislead the weak.

@caffeinator1849

3 жыл бұрын

@@antoniolima1068 he is still very important, nonetheless whether you like the result or not. In context of US politics, the left uses his framework (often carelessly), and the right demonizes it (often ignorantly).

@antoniolima1068

3 жыл бұрын

@@caffeinator1849 important for a new paradigma that enables females and disordered individuals, no one really judge his work and the consequences of that line of thinking, all good when we live at the expense of others.

I really like this, and your videos in general. Your recap of what genealogy is, is a bit lacking though, and I find to be more a recap of Discipline and Punish, than explanatory for what constitutes genealogical methodology. Though A and G are obviously similar and interlinked, the main concern for G as method, is alienation of the self. How can Foucault alienate himself towards a topic, and subsequently, how can he subvert himself (or the reader) by doing this. A is in that sense more historical and retrospective, G is also historical, but rather concerned with being retroactive. A is concerned with what history tells about our present, G is concerned with how history can inform our future. I hope that makes sense. I apologize if misunderstood what you said and we agreed all along, then please just disregard this message.

Excellent video about an excellent mind.

Humbling I want to share my thoughts. What I observed there is a “common denominator” a desire, I prefer to called a vibration or frequency that changes based on “events”. I feel there are natural laws that humans ignore to control the people and the environment, but eventually things collapsed like any empire we can read of. I observed that everything has a “time” to express itself and something else will come and become the new powerful energy that society will fallow. I personally deleted my Facebook and Instagram because I decided to have real people in my life, I never thought I could do that because of all the reasons I was telling to myself, but then, over time I acquire knowledge and the power to make the change vibrationally. Knowledge is power and courage is only for the few that want to make a difference.

@Joao.MC33

3 жыл бұрын

Lol

@robertgould1345

2 жыл бұрын

Foucault would criticise your notion of "real life" just like he deconstructed Bacon's notion that knowledge is power. Unknowingly, you are trapped within the dominant discourses of modernity. These limit how you live your life and how you conceptualize your freedom.

A beautiful video!

Amazing video! Thanks

Please do a video on Carl Jung, I love your depth and objectivity

Esse é o melhor vídeo do canal

Holy shit this video is a lifesaver. We’re reading the Order of Things in my undergraduate class rn and my ADHD doesn’t go well with Foucault’s non-linear dense writing.

@ThenNow

3 жыл бұрын

Glad to have helped :)

@Heyu7her3

Жыл бұрын

Linearity isn't really an ADHD thing, Foucault is just really dense/ easy to conflate

God I love that ending quote

I obviously didn’t understand everything but the little bits I took from it were very interesting.

This was super well done / thanks!

Foucault is brilliant

Kind of wild Guy Sorman's recent revelations in French media that Foucault went to Tunisia and sexually abused children went almost completely unnoticed in the anglosphere outside of two British tabloids

@frarema4147

2 жыл бұрын

i think there's an article in jeune afrique that interview with people in tunisia who said differently, though sorman didnt exactly provide much of an evidence lol

Really good video man

Me: I can't crack this assignment on Foucault... Then & Now: **posts video on Foucault** Me: Is this A SIGN??

@ThenNow

5 жыл бұрын

Good luck with your assignment!

Very informative!

Brilliant

Of course, his concept of the "long term" is itself developed by the more important historiographical tradition of the Annales school, with authors like Mark Bloch, Jacques LeGoff, and above all Fernand Braudel in his seminal work "The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II" of the late 1940's.

11:03 The cartoon Futurama gives us a little sneak preview when it refers to our present day as "The Stupid Ages."

"the free thinking eyes", with the overlaping Sartre, dam thats gold! 4:34

good work on Foucault

4:42 jean-Paul Sartre AND Simone de Beauvoir

@AB-dy9fh

3 жыл бұрын

The Dark wasn’t she his wife eventually?

@popeeeyee253

3 жыл бұрын

@@AB-dy9fh They had a polyamorous relationship from quite early on I believe

I feel he and Machiavelli (from what little I've personally read of both) are extremely similar in mindset

@doctoroesperanto3663

5 жыл бұрын

Read more🤣

@HxH2011DRA

5 жыл бұрын

@@doctoroesperanto3663 when I say little i really mean I've only read one book from each. You don't have to tell me

The catch 22 of Foucault and postmodernism is the reliance on an argument, a belief, or ontological precipice, to explain a system of understanding the world that does not have the means of those same arguments, beliefs, or ontology. How can we believe a new argument whose point is to defeat the basis from which the argument is being formed? If indeed the point could be made, it would require another approach that is, as far as anyone can tell, undefined. To the contrary, although reason may only be more recently apparent in human culture, all animals and biological behavioral explanations, including human activity, learning, and active thought, develops from empirical observation/experience. Foucault himself did this when forming what he would say about the world. We can recognize more attributes to things than are obvious. The claims of power appear sensible because we know the world is far more complicated. However, it is the rejection of the critical, rational, empirical form of reality, that makes these supposed 'deeper explanations' of the world invalid. It is likely that the world is both real, tangible, knowable, and far more sophisticated -- all at the same time. A great example is the long history of math: Foucault ignoring that the calculus was invented during the Renaissance reflects the flaws in hyper-generalizing whole periods of human activity for the sake of argument. Newtonian physics, etc. There are a million examples ignored for the sake of pretending the world is simple enough to explain as if all people had one emotion.

"Free thinking eyes" *shows a picture of Sartre*

Could you please recommend me any article or book explaining the differences between structuralism and post-structuralism?

@nelsonphillips

5 жыл бұрын

When I ask such a question it usually takes a while for a poor quality responds to come back. So I got into the habit of reducing my number of stupid questions about philosophy by going to this following link, ;-). plato.stanford.edu/index.html

@sgeddegs9517

5 жыл бұрын

Check out cuck philosophy's faq on postmodernism

@Heyu7her3

Жыл бұрын

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or even Wikipedia are pretty good

Good information, but the way quotes come onto the screen like what we see around 20:30 drives me nuts. The first few words are only legible about 20 seconds after you are saying them. So, the animation is just a distraction from whatever the quote is at first. It's like watching a video where the lips movement is out of sync with what is being said.

@ThenNow

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for feedback! Yeah, I've rectified this in later videos :)

The script is great but gosh I’m glad you have better visual presentation skills now.

interesting video on Foucault!

I know little of Foucault but from what I learned in this video his conclusions sound right but his methodology seems a loose. Maybe prison resemble factories because for architectural and engineering considerations rather than some function of a power structure. He is right, we should critically examine what we assume. Anyone following his philosophy should do the same.

@jamesgfmorin

5 жыл бұрын

What you say is correct. But I think Foucault might respond that it makes no difference what the intention of your project was, i.e. the partitioning of space in early hospitals meant to manage the spread of disease leads to an unforeseen power hierarchy. If you're looking for a more substantial argument along these lines, I would suggest 'The Panopticon' which is a chapter in Foucault's Discipline and Punish.

@jamesgfmorin

5 жыл бұрын

The entirety of Discipline and Punish can be understood as an argument for the way this happens through administrative control of space and the body; despite any good-faith intentions that we might try to enact in our implementation of these controls.

@myothersoul1953

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesgfmorin Unforeseen power hierarchy? Maybe but if all you see is power hierarchies foreseeing them should be a problem. As spaces in hospitals as been partitioned has power become more hierarchical? Modern hospitals aren't so much power hierarchies as they are a mix of interests competing for power or at least money. Even if partitioning and power both changed that doesn't mean the changes are related. The type of clothing worn in hospitals has also changed, why couldn't that control the power structure as easily as architecture?

@myothersoul1953

5 жыл бұрын

@@jamesgfmorin Whether or not an argument leads to understanding depends on what you mean by "understanding". If understanding is telling a story then there are countless ways to understand. When understanding includes make precise predictions, far few stories make the cut. Good faith intentions fail less often when they are implemented with the 2nd kind of understanding. But our understanding is limited, things don't always play out how we hope. Our goal should be to increase the predictive precision, so we have more power thus increasing the probability our good intentions will work out.

@jamesgfmorin

5 жыл бұрын

@@myothersoul1953 Whether we agree with Foucault or not, it's not hard to see that even the most minute elements of hospitals shape our cultural understanding of health, and life, and death. And it's a truism now that even the concept of science you portray is arbitrary and world-historical. There are plenty of examples to show the way that power and space/the body are interrelated; for one, the restriction of movement across borders. Foucault's concept of power comes from his reading of Nietzsche, through Deleuze mainly, and that needs to be remembered. Power isn't only sinister or evil or sinful or corrupting; it is also productive, generative, propelling, healthy.

Great work, as always. More Foucault, please!

I really don't think that the flashy arrows and text effects are necessary :D But otherwise, a nice introductory essay.

Is it possible to obtain the references in this video, so it may be used and referred to in a scientific paper? Who is talking?

I had to watch this for a class and I don't know why I needed to look at image after image around the 21 minute mark of pulp that eroticizes rape in order to learn about Foucault. Hoping this is the last video of yours I'm asked to watch.

Hegel>Kojeve>Bataille>Foucault. Great video. Love the ending.

let's apply Focault on Focault shall we? what are the pre-conditions that made Focault, Focault ? first, i guess a skeptic nature of history, and a skeptic nature of the human thinking, how it functions and why does it function this way (Husserl), relativism, linguistics & Post-modernism and etc.. we posses the knowledge that is on-hold. it's there but our thinking condition, environment, society .. etc make us focus on it. history shades some layers of knowledge, and lighten others.

Does Foucault see any underlying logic to this "progression" of epistemes or is it arbitrary and unpredictable? Is there a tendency for epistemes to change in a certain way which we can analyse?

@turdfergeson8641

3 жыл бұрын

I think your problem is in your first question. Epistemes do not "progress", and this is precisely Foucault's point. Whereas a Marxist would say that history is on a rational progression towards some teleological end (communism), Foucualt says that history has lots of contingencies, and is not on any kind of consitient track. As a result, much like the people in past epistemes could not predict the conditions of our epistemes, we cannot predict the conditions of the epistemes of the future.

@michaelwu7678

3 жыл бұрын

Turd Fergeson But can we not analyze what forces cause epistemes to change?

@turdfergeson8641

3 жыл бұрын

@@michaelwu7678 well, in Foucault's view, no. But again, that's just Foucault's view. You're free to think how you like :)

Great video, but the way you present quotes is really hard to read. Just do a simple fade in you don't need to have the letters overlap each other. It'd be one thing if the timing was right but your voice is ahead of the letters so by the time you can actually read them you're almost done speaking. Makes for a difficult reading experience. You don't need to be so fancy with it.

You should do a vid about Baudrillard :)

@ThenNow

4 жыл бұрын

Coming up next!

I don't quite understand the picture of religious power at 3:41. What is it showing?

Psychologically punishment is conditioning, if the criminal isn't effected by the punishment those outside the individual certainly will be. The question is when does punishment become revenge? There has to be a certain amount of punishment however, if there isn't things will descend into anarchy. Balance between order and chaos is needed, but I am not sure human beings are capable of being balanced. Balance suggests perfection, perfection like peace is a lie.

at 4:40 you say "the existentialists emphasizing the free eye" and go to a picture of Sartre. I See what you did there.

@choggerboom

4 жыл бұрын

I tipped my cap to that as well

Why didn't you write Simone de Beauvoir's name in the photo with Sartre? It's hard to argue that her contribution to Existentialism didn't rival Sartre's.

Didn't stirner really do what Nietzsche did prior to him/start the thought processes that broke with the idea of human nature/essence and power? Stirners conception of power was competence/ability ect and stirner ripped apart the concepts of truth, justice, freedom, legality, power, right, morality, good and evil. He was the reason for the transition from young marx to old marx and the historical materialism. I guess what I'm asking is Nietzsche or stirner or both the place to start before getting into the work of foucault?

OK, not bad at all on explaining the "invention" of man.

8:57min Yes, but the ordering, measuring, counting, accounting, astronomy, tax collectors, extent of production size of land was all taking place since Egypt and Mesopotamia. At least at that level there is something general presented as a particular defining feature of the age. Also, the extent of generalizability of his concept of power is equal to "The cosmos as it engages is particularizing "cell-division" motion, or, entropic motion". Yes, everything is, in this cosmos, integrated but, this is an impression, they seem to equalize the extent of relativizing motion across the universe precisely as if relativity was not the case.

@miat9039

2 жыл бұрын

I think foucault is mostly talking about the western way of thinking

@gonzogil123

2 жыл бұрын

@@miat9039 No, I would not agree to be honest. In a number of claims he makes about what he is doing he clarifies that he is grounding himself in Nietzsche and Heidegger. The latter two make human societies the object of their empirical study. Both of them reacting against historical materialism. Nietzsche prefers to study history via a geneological etymology of terms. But cannot offer solutions to societal (market) problems out of any of the insights/studies he develops. That is to say comes up with nothing in terms of what he studies the most: "power". Foucault asserts and agrees with Nietzsche conception of "power" as a kind of axiom that will enable the discovery of a number of things out of the reach of historical materialism (just finished "A contribution to the critique of political economy"). I have yet to see any. He claims to also prefer "Game Theory" as a theoretical model to understand human relations, but here he generalizes the mentality, as Nietzsche would have called it, to everyone. The latter seems unwarranted, or, unproven in their case. It also fails as a theory to understand the logic of capitalist economies. That is what I have been able to detect. I still have to purchase the books and read what it is that they claim they can achieve via their theories: the postmodern philosophers.

@gonzogil123

2 жыл бұрын

@@miat9039 errata: the mentality of "resentiment" to everyone.

@miat9039

2 жыл бұрын

@@gonzogil123 i think you misunderstands what i said When i say foucault was talking about western thinking i was talking about in your first comment about egypt being about like that of the classical episteme as foucualt describe it.What i mean to say is that foucault order of things he was talking about the western way of thinking at that moment of renaissance which as you can see sort of excludes egypt and mesoptomia and is (as always) focus on greece.I was describing how it may be that egypt is at that time doing the classical episteme but foucualt is focuse mostly on the western way at that time which is resemblance.

@miat9039

2 жыл бұрын

@@gonzogil123 also i do agree with you that nietzsche( and in extension foucault) are more speculative in their ideas as such.I mean an ubermensch is such a mendable idea that the nazi manage to make it their own.While foucault does speculate like that of the future of what an episteme is (as he said he think that the way we view man would change overtime though he use the term wager)i think he is more interested in giving a way for philosopher after him a tool to make better philosophy after(same as nietzsche).

The info on how foucault views power was illuminating. Although, as he knows how much baggage words carry power seems like a bad word to use. Of course when you nuance it, it is just fine but that level of attention among people is rare. From what you said at the end about if someone knows more truth then I am fine with him teaching...that is "competence". I would also argue that a lot of the dynamic between men and women and people in general is cooperation and you start throwing power to describe that it kind of taints it. One other thing I see a lot of what you might call post modern philosophers doing is misusing the term "capitalism". Capitalism is the private ownership of land and means of production with voluntary transactions. I don't see a more fair and adaptable system then this. I think when they say "capitalism" they really mean "lassez-faire" or "commodification" or "consumerism", and these guys know their words so they should know better. Also, they tend to criticize the west (from what I have seen) and nowhere else. Hey, BTW, you going to do a video on DERRIDA sometime? I am tackling him currently before Foucault. I do think Foucault has many interesting points and there is much to be learned by him.

@inofmotion

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you, glad common sense is not dead. It is unfortunate that he was influenced by Marx and by those who influenced Marx himself, like Kant.

Does anyone knows which is the text where Nietzche denies progressive history?

@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123

5 жыл бұрын

On Use and Abuse of History for Life, I haven't read this essay myself, but some source (videos and books) mention this Nietzsche's work that influenced Foucault to starting a historical analysis.

@carlosricketts5194

5 жыл бұрын

@@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123 thank you very much. I will check that out

@moch.farisdzulfiqar6123

5 жыл бұрын

@@carlosricketts5194 your welcome :)

good

Comment for the Algorithm. Thank you for this Video

@4:44 The free eye

From Foucault to the performativity of Judith Butler the only last thing remaining is a global consitution where the rights of the dead be upon of the living oo

@googleuser2609

4 жыл бұрын

Wtf are you talking about?

I think the summary of this would be more biting in 2020; and more prescient. #surveillancecapitalism

Really nice video cant thank you enough for saving my presentation tomorrow. But the wierd fading text animation was really distracting and disorienting.

You are like Alain de Botton but less biased

Maps love him.

He was no less than Max Planck of Philosophy

I’m fond of butter and ladders

I'm pretty sure episteme is pronounced epistemé

@Ruonerful

5 жыл бұрын

It's actually epistéme

@philosophicsblog

5 жыл бұрын

En français, it's pronounced épistémè with a terminal accent grave (not aigu).

24 minutes!!

One day they 'll come after anyone who's interested in this. Please keep going. We 'll donate☺

"Man became an object of study for the first time" Uh, 5 min earlier: Plato studying the soul of man.

@miat9039

2 жыл бұрын

I think you misunderstand what he meant by man.He describe "Man" in a modern sense of the word think of the way heidegger view of man as a subject of inquiry rather than a humanist view of man.Now plato view on man is very different which is that plato saw man in a teological that is to say he must be excellent.

12:51 Scary screaming >.

J'admire toujours la philosophie français e

😎

Hi! I’m a big fan and want to help you with some money. Can you set it up on Apple Pay?

@ThenNow

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks, that's much appreciated! Unfortunately not but I have Patreon in the description below the video or a Paypal tip here if that works? www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=JJ76W4CZ2A8J2

Foucault is a master of stating the glaringly obvious, as though he’s revealing hidden truths. He’s like a little girl who thinks she knows more about the world than the adults she’s trying to impress with her “insights”

@abyssssbmusic1370

Жыл бұрын

for most philosophy i personally feel like i either dont understand what the philosopher is saying, or i do understand and it seems like something that is extremely obvious to say (i guess unless i disagree with what they're saying), and maybe because of that i feel like the fact that it seems obvious to me doesnt necessarily mean it wasnt difficult to think of in the first place (or that there wasnt some kind of process involved in reaching the conclusions). after thinking about it some more, i feel like in my experience whether some idea or concept is useful in some sense to me depends not only on my being able to understand the idea, but being able to connect it to other things i think about or have experienced so that i would be able to apply it in some way - so if i immediately understand an idea it might not have much meaning for me past what the immediate meaning is. i think i came across the concept of what ideas people think of being a product of their circumstances/conditions/environment in which they live in, but it didnt really mean anything to me until recently when ive been thinking more about the idea of philosophy being a lot more free in what kinds of things people are able to think of, rather than the progression of philosophy being the only possible path it could take, or the things people thought of or the ways they thought of the things they thought of being the only possible ways, and in that context the idea of peoples thoughts being a product of their environments (to some extent) can actually serve a purpose/function/work as an explanation for why something might be the way it is rather than it just being a statement that sounds like its probably true, and that being all it is. im not trying to say any of this to discount what you're saying, but ive recently been thinking a lot about the idea of philosophy sounding obvious so i wanted to share some thoughts about that

@andrewnelson3681

Жыл бұрын

@@abyssssbmusic1370 It seems to me that the purpose of philosophy, is to allow us to transcend whatever our current circumstances are, by revealing underlying truths which help us to understand not only where we currently are now, but also allow us to see a path forward. Foucault’ approach seems to be to simply describe our current situation and suggest that there are no underlying truths. He doesn’t believe in human nature, so imagines that we can “think” our way into new and different ways of living.

I am going to use Foucalt on Foucalt. Foucalts word salad is meaningless because the way in which he used words borrowed meanings from the original meanings which of course have no inherent nature aside from a very specific context of meaning and the value Foucalt gives it when it isn't his to claim but is mere posturing and therefore every criticism against Foucalt is more accurate. To deny Foucalt's ideas completely is to apply them correctly cancelling Foucalt completely and completing Foucalt's illusory idea of logic.

@billcooper8129

4 жыл бұрын

Academics are so easily dazzled by credentialed authority figures projecting meticulous strings of buzzwords. Like moths to a light.

So Foucault is interested in Truth games (of deception), and Wittgenstein language games (of manipulation)...seems everything is Foucaultenstein...

Foucalt is so smart I get offended of how stupid I feel

someone said nihilism?

@shamanking19042000

4 жыл бұрын

You're a fraud and your channel is trash

@caffeinator1849

3 жыл бұрын

@@shamanking19042000 he's a Peterson fanboy😂

Both Nietzsche and Foucault are ultimately incomplete and wrong about the nature of evil or the bad and hence virtue, the good and the nature of functionality itself. Otherwise interesting and somewhat useful.

@jayvis123111

5 жыл бұрын

You gonna say why or....?

@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542

4 жыл бұрын

Ellaborate

@jayvis123111

4 жыл бұрын

@@hauntologicalwittgensteini2542 I've been waiting two months. I don't think it's gonna happen.

L O V E U

fin