Thoughts on Michel Foucault & other serious postmodern philosophers?

I'm looking for some intelligent discussion, critique, analysis, etc of the various postmodern philosophers, - tho especially Foucault - talking about some of the valuable things they had to say, perhaps what was obfuscatory about some of their ideas, maybe identifying just what postmodernism is exactly, etc.

I still haven't read it, but it sounds as if Foucault's work on Prisons and Mental Health are quite interesting and valuable - also, does anyone have experience with Deleuze and "Capitalism and Schizophrenia"?

Other urls found in this thread: Notes/modernism_vs_postmodernism.htm

Some important works

IDFK why, but all pdf copies of Discipline and Punish I can find are way too big in file size, even tho its only a 300 pg book, idk

O, never mind found this

He was cool in his younger years
But then he seemed to devolve into a New-"Left"/SJW near the later half off his life
He was also a bit pedo iirc

Most of the French Left was in the 1960s


Some more Foucault

God I don't want to be "le wrong generation xd" idiots, but I really really fucking miss when the caliber of public intellectual was AT LEAST Chomsky and Foucault and not

Jordan Peterson.

Foucault is great, as is Judith Butler. Both have some very questionable opinions about existing and prior leftist movements, but their criticism is in good faith and their theory is very useful for building new leftist theory and movements.

In the first ten pages of gender trouble she condemns identitarianism and warns against the arbitrary instatement of new sexual heirarchies. Tumblr & co. are jusr absolute retards who never read the theorists they laud

Sorry for a short unsupported post I need to get to work tho unfortunately

Murray Rothbard, postmodernist philosopher

I don't think Memerson is taken seriously by anyone as a public intellectual.

Postmodern philosophers devolved into a bunch of moderates, read Reich if you want Foucault if he were good.

Oops didn't mean to sage, it's just on there from last time.

Gender trouble is trash. Literally the first page of that book is Butler asserting the politics of identity. To, ten pages later, assert that identitarianism is awful is merely typical of the kinds of doublespeak her execrable texts engage in. Furthermore, all Butlerites should be put to death.

Any thoughts on Kittler?

wasn't Foucault one of several philosophers funded by the CIA to cultivate an anti-Stalinist left to prevent the USSR gaining influence in France?

This is along the lines of what I've read in Victoria Grace's Baudrillard's Challenge. In her discussion of Butler she notes that Butler says:

The critique leveled by Grace, through Baudrillard, is that by claiming there is nothing outside of identity and difference Butler is positing the logic of identity itself as a kind of global subject. Grace points out that while Butler at times seeks to subvert identity, she also posits identity as having no outside. It should be noted that a lot of feminists have this problem- in Grace's book Irigaray and Braidotti are also featured.

In Forget Foucault, Baudrillard's point is that Foucault has made power into something transhistorical. The inevitability of power as productive for Baudrillard leaves no room for reversion and cuts out the role of death in our experience of life.

For Baudrillard, power is a challenge- for example, do what I want or I will kill you. It is indeed possible to rise to this challenge by embracing death and exposing the illusion of the power of the master. Instead, we all too often reduce life to survival, which gives us the idea that there are natural "needs"- I "need" to survive, for example. But why? So we can see that our idea of power as productive only holds when the challenge of power is refused, when the dominated accepts submission.

I've been reading Baudrillard's latest works (Spirit of Terrorism, Agony of Power, Carnival and Cannibal) and I do think he's on to some stuff. Part of the problem is the debate about what aspects of Marx's work need to be updated. Baudrillard puts it to us that there may have been one or two revolutions in the value form since Marx: the first shifted primacy from production to consumption and the second corresponds to a "viral" character of value which he now sees as radiating out in all directions.

Of course, regular Marxists recoil at the questioning of materialist dogma. On the other hand, there's the question of how well Marxists actually do understand the economy and the world which gives rise to it.

What I like about Baudrillard's book is that he encourages us to think of the world as a giant potlatch- a challenge where everyone is challenged to bring the best gift. In this way the commodity form is not only about standardizing objects to meet use values, but also seduction, leading people astray in the sense of becoming convinced that the stakes lie where they not.

I don't think Baudrillard really lays out a program, but his challenges to Marxism are good ones, I think. In general the question of postmodernisms can be counter-posed to one of postmodernity. Do you think there is a shift from modernity to post-modernity?

One thing that strikes me is that everyone thinks modernism was about reason and certainty, but modernism is the era of stuff like Picasso, WWI, Finnegan's Wake, etc. It seems to me like people put onto postmodernism a lot of the stuff that is actually modernist. To me the "postmodern era" in terms of lack of faith in dominant metanarratives has to be traced to 1914, the year in which the story of the happy nation-station came to a screeching halt.


Pretty problematic of him to die from a socially constructed disease that existed only to reinforce existing social repression of the LGBT community and POCs.


t. Camille Paglia on Foucault

How do you respond?

Kind of reminds me of Stirner:

Amoral pseud
Posturing continentals

He's a gay leftist pedo who died of AIDS.

Think about it, really hard.

Ah yes

Chomsky was right:

what is his earlier work? Is there an "early Lacan"?

Postmodern discussion was won by Stirner before it started

kek, i c wut u did thar

the particular retardation of Foucault aside, my general problem with the social critique movement of D&G, Foucault, Butler, etc. is that it tries to weaponize the psychological concept of desire against capitalism when desire and the pursuit of pure enjoyment IS the prime mover of Capitalism per the capitalists themselves. Trying to subvert capitalism through the "unbridling" of desire is like trying to cast Drain in Final Fantasy 1 against undead shit; the enemies get health back and you lose it instead.

The reason why this happens is that people tend to confuse politics with aesthetics, where if you participate in demonstrations, and that if you send a message and "raise awareness," people think you are engaging in activity that would have an actual effect politically, when it really doesn't, and would only invite repression from the surrounding society without having accomplished anything. Occupy Wall Street was a perfect example of this where Adbusters called to occupy the place squat-style, and people did come, but it had no real politically meaningful moves afterwards; it just dissolved into a mishmash of a "marketplace of ideas" that was crashed by riot cops and the sanitation department of NYC. It just became another weird art show, with no real politics but the signs.

This should be the clue for anyone looking for a real movement: does it aim to change the general society for the workers, and if so, WHAT SORT OF WORK DOES IT ACTUALLY DO? Working and preparation towards the seizure of the means of production (and reproduction, giggity) is the only real action that has revolutionary perspectives. Starting hackerspaces to collect tools and teach people to use them, while keeping the project viable regulation/insurance-wise, is revolutionary. Starting "countercultural" art and party spaces only to have them burn down Ghost-ship style, inviting a total crackdown on them from the authorities because you are a fire hazard and a noise nuisance for the neighbors, is not revolutionary.

Thats a spicy take friend

Its not doublespeak to say that identity is historically constituted and arbitrary (as well as nonessential and noninevitable) but nonetheless its horizons determines how we will describe the historical and social conditions that have created such an identity. That is her claim and its completely opposed to the claim of identity politics that there are essential identities that take precedence over material historic conditions, she only expands on the conflict between our understanding of the world being shaped by implicit identities and our attempt to establish a reality outside of identity in spite of that.

never post here again

your effortpost is disqualified

here, very good post, thank you i will read Baudrillards Challenge

What exactly is he referring to as a "cult" though.

To the Congo with you.


Minds that are actually superior can express their ideas in clear and easy to digest language. Chomsky for instance. You are an obvious bullshitter.


Stop being a brainlet.

I don't think you can amoral, if you impose your idea on someone(or lack of one)then it's already a sort of morality.

Having a moral code is necessary for our well-being, this is why everyone has morality.

So, I mentioned this shizz already, but can we discuss how the major topics of postmodernism are actually present in modernism as well? I saw this web page and I started to get mad: Notes/modernism_vs_postmodernism.htm

First of all, it says Modernism just is "Enlightenment Humanism." Whereas if you go over to Wikipedia (yeah yeah I know) it says "Modernism also rejected the certainty of Enlightenment thinking, and many modernists rejected religious belief."

Finally, I just want to point out that when Debord wrote Comments on Society of the Spectacle, he said the Spectacle at the time of his first book (1967) had "barely forty years behind it," which points to him seeing the beginning of the spectacle as the mid-1920s.

The point I'm making is that everyone seems to be in le tizz because society started getting weird in the 60s or something, when in reality shizz was crazy since WWI and even a few years before, a la pic related. The fact is that enlightenment rationality and the modern myth of national sovereignty crashed on the rocks of the Great War and the subsequent mass media age dominated by UK/US propaganda.

As from the materials I posted above, what a lot of people think postmodernism is is actually just what modernism is: questioning metanarratives, seeking new forms of expression, skepticism about received dogma, self-referentiality…

I think what's happening here is that capitalists don't wanna admit how weird their society and are trying to blame French intellectuals and communists for the fact that shit has gotten so crazy. Similar to morons being all like "lah-zay fair, not monopoly capitalism!" When in realty, lassez faire capitalism led to monopoly capitalism, just like Enlightenment modernity, or traditionalism before it, inexorably led to the "postmodern" age.

no u

I'm not that user, but I'd wager that he was in fact scolding you for you facebook-worthy sense of humor, in particular the done to death pun and "giggity".

Ok for that I apologize. Here is some awesome music from the show of our greatest pastiche of American Heroes, Capitan FARUKON!!!

I honestly like how he is what the Japanese think we see ourselves as. I like to think he could be an awesome addition to our memetic library, somehow

It's cliche but the world never really was the same after WWI and WW2. I can't quite find the words for it though. In trying to make sense of all the madness, we turned to various philosophies and schools of thought such as existentialism and cultural revolution.

Something just "happened" in and to the subconscious of humanity and the whole thing seems to be "off" forever. A sort of innocence lost and we don't know what to do without it.

I haven’t read much Foucault, but Discipline and Punish is amazing and has a very clear and heavy Marxist bent in its explanation for the need to produce society on a disciplinary basis and the need for the “delinquent”.