BBC, lots of it.
>>24890529Entire sentences that have been reinterpreted to mean something completely different then what they originally said.
The deranged ramblings of an AIDS riddled French pedo.
I like that he thought aids was a conspiracy to keep him from having unprotected sex and not a conspiracy to kill him and everyone like him."These striped pajamas aren't sexy at all" type shit
>>24890529Shameless defenses of paedophilia, bugchasing and fistfucking.
>>24890529>aids isn't real lmao>dies of aids
>>24890529I read like 2 chapters of Discipine and Punish, and it was like a bit of interesting history of western prison and justice systems, and then schizophrenic ramblings. I’m going to assume it’s similar to that.
antiquated systems of power and control that have no relevance in the modern age(i havent read any of his work)
Foucault was basically concerned with the “dynamics of power” meme and how this apparently influences the truth. Essentially believing that truth and what we call “facts” aren’t exactly real at all but rather just a presentation of what is agreed upon by a majority. So essentially he uses this idea to state that it basically doesn’t matter what actually happened or what actually is reality but rather that facts and truth are essentially engineered by a system. This is why he uses the panopticon as a reference since he basically believes that society is made this way on purpose in order for things to be monitored and controlled by a top down system. As this guy is a communist, you can tell he basically took most of these ideas from Antonio Gramsci’s idea of the subaltern and how a state is organized basically. TL:DR Post-Modern Schizo Babble about how everything is ackshually authoritarian and that truth is basically “constructed” (in other words bullshit).
Did Foucault contribute anything original, at all? The panopticon, perhaps? I can't think of anything else that isn't simply a rehash. >>24891314I can't really argue with any of those points, though, what I object to is the perception that anything Foucault said was original.
>>24891320His conclusions are basically semantics and word games to justify post-modernist crap but they are “original” even though he’s just copying Gramsci, who came up with his theories mixing Marx with Ibn Khaldun. Basically St. Augustine of Hippo reigns supreme philosophy-wise with St. Francis of Assisi, St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Padre Pio. Ignore the schizo babble and praise Jesus our Lord.
what the hell is this guys problem?
>>24890529Your homosexual awakening
>>24891314>As this guy is a communistKek, he was literally a neoliberal praising Milton Friedman and Gary Becker
>>24890529funny thing about this guy is, he looks exactly like an evil pedo psychopath, and yet, that's precisely what he is haha
>>24890529Based postmodernist French thought.Ignore all the philosophylets and chuds in this thread, it's kino
>>24890529A pedophile who wasted his rhetorical talents on trying to justify his own lifestyle and kinks instead of digging deeper in understanding power. Had he more of a spiritual and moral backbone, he would have been a genuinely interesting historian of ideas; even a hack like Chomsky pointed out Foucault had no real values, was the most amoral person Chomsky had ever met and that he seemed to come from a "different species." What the contemporary Foucault reader will be exposed to in the course of exploring his works is little more than an extended apologia for what would now be considered sex crimes, and I believe Foucault would have been diagnosed with sociopathy were he alive today.
For a board about litterature there's not much talk about what he wrote itt
>>24891332>St. Padre Pio.lmfao
>>24891599He was a member of the French Communist Party you retard. Also you’re so fucking wrong, he literally sat down and critiqued both of those guys you fucking dope.
>>24891819He left the PCF in the 50s because he found them homophobic and anti-semitic, you clueless retard. He criticized Marxism for being an outdated Englightenment ideology ever since. Read his Birth of Biopolitics lectures and you'll see that he was embracing neoliberalism
>>24891837Complete and utter drivel from you here. Just because he left the PCF as a member does NOT mean he was no longer a Leftist. And just because he criticized Marx mildly does not mean that either. He clearly remained in Leftist circles and believed in their general mission but decided to (as likely an optics move) critique power due to the massively worsening public image of Communism/Leftist politics and movements. The idea that he was a “Neoliberal” at all is fucking laughable and just flat out wrong. He was entirely an anti-establishment deluded degenerate pedophile far-left LOSER all his life.
>>24891874>He clearly remained in Leftist circles and believed in their general mission but decided to (as likely an optics move) critique power due to the massively worsening public image of Communism/Leftist politics and movements.>The idea that he was a “Neoliberal” at all is fucking laughable and just flat out wrong. He was entirely an anti-establishment deluded degenerate pedophile far-left LOSER all his life.Why did he advise people to vote against Mitterrand in 1981 then?Why did the CIA fund his work?He was literally an useful idiot in the West's struggle against communism/Marxism
>>24890529Is Foucault really as full of shit as I’m led to believe here on /lit/? From the few short essays summarizing his ideas that I’ve read, he sounds very influential. Is it wrong to say that the critique that transnational corporations and hedge funds and weapons manufacturers for co-opting identity politics as a PR method is not based in part on some of Foucault’s ideas?
>>24891882He basically disagreed over theory and application + state structure which for leftists is a super big fucking deal. They are the most common to eat their own and break away for very minor reasons. As for the CIA? They probably realized it was good to fracture Far-Left movements this way. They did the same shit for the Far-Right. >>24891986For me the identity politics co-opting is more of an Antonio Gramsci sort of thing, which is echoed by Foucault but he never invented that sort of critique. Also if you’re mentioning that critique from the perspective from the Conservative Right (Christopher Rufo, Olavo de Carvalho, etc) and/or the Far-Right (William Luther Pierce, James Mason, etc) then it comes also from the same source which is Gramsci.
Foucault was a right-wing homofascist
>>24891777If he truly was amoral why would he go through all that effort to justify himself?
>>24891986>Is Foucault really as full of shit as I’m led to believe here on /lit/?No, what you were encountering was a stalling strat
