What are your thoughts on Foucault?

oh frig off, they dont have a fucking copyright on that word ya mook, and this is one of the few cases where it feels extremely appropriate

I would say "alt-rights" often display the same kind of relativism albeit in a twisted way, it doesnt matter what camp it is coming from its still some armchair faggot with a good life telling the proles that their existence is pointless and they should just suck it up, make their own reality, or some other bullshit

its worthless, its counterrevolutionary, and its promoted by the..powers that be because it demoralizes people and makes them politically impotent.

just like all this alternate dimensions bullshit, fuck off nigger there isnt a vice versa dimension stop trying to get around the fact that you should probably be hanged in a peoples court for your crimes

if nothing matters, the bankers win

oh frig off, they dont have a fucking copyright on that word ya mook, and this is one of the few cases where it feels extremely appropriate

I would say "alt-rights" often display the same kind of relativism albeit in a twisted way, it doesnt matter what camp it is coming from its still some armchair faggot with a good life telling the proles that their existence is pointless and they should just suck it up, make their own reality, or some other bullshit

its worthless, its counterrevolutionary, and its promoted by the..powers that be because it demoralizes people and makes them politically impotent.

just like all this alternate dimensions bullshit, fuck off nigger there isnt a vice versa dimension stop trying to get around the fact that you should probably be hanged in a peoples court for your crimes

if nothing matters, the bankers win

You've never actually read Foucault, have you

...

ive never thumbed my own ass either, although both of those actions would probably lead to the same result i.e. nothing

I did see the debate between him and chumsky, one of the few times I sided with noam, although he once again displayed that he is a soft-spoken fag that cant into actually arguing if it isnt long form.

Its the same as reading wittgenstein, there is little of value to be gained and a whole lot of intellectual masturbation and autism to put up with, name one thing foucault said that could help me to be a better person or help me to elevate others, how does any of this nonce lead towards some kind of coherent goal?

it doesnt, its pure western liberlism

lul

I wish retards like you would get banned.

>>>/lit/

i'm willing to read discipline and punishment. does anyone know if it's hard?

If you are not willing to educate yourself on what the fuck you're talking about instead of spouting memes, then I might suggest a visit to our very friendly board, >>>/suicide/

good jaab completely avoiding my point, name one thing this man has said that has any relevance to me, or other plebs in my position

Its easy to do with someone like marx even if you fundamentally disagree with his Weltanschauung, hell even the aforementioned wittgenstein has a few pieces of corn in his mountains of shit

another clear indicator that foucault is little more than a limpdicked western liberal wanker is that he distanced himself from half the shit he said throughout his career, very typical of his kind

Look I might come across as a cunt, but I have conceeded more than a few points in these here hallowed halls, so just do it, no pressure:

give me something from foucault that I can work with, pehaps something about power dynamics that is a unique observation and can actually translate into understanding of the real world. Bonus points if it isnt pure idpol or something blatantly obvious that i can get from someone that isnt an aids-riddled hedonist

did he really write a 400 page manuscript about the sexuality of the iranian revolution, my god what a fag

I might be interested in his comments on marx although I can take a guess where that is going to go, namely nowhere

same to you

I'm reading it at the moment and I don't think it's overall very hard, and english isn't even my first language (i found the english version easy to understand than the portuguese one).

Literally not an argument. I am not going to waste my time explaining to a retard who can't read before talking about a topic and just spouts ad hominems and memes.

You are not a cunt, just your average Holla Forums retard who loves to scream MUH IDPOL upon reading something related to sexuality without actually delving into the content and analysing it.

In short, do as the flag says, or simply kill yourself.

Its just a shitposting Holla Forumsack, no need to reply.

the subject and power is probably what you're looking for.

"I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power relations, a way that is more empirical, more directly related to our present situation, and one that implies more relaitions between theory and practice. It consists in taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point.
To use another metaphor, it consists in using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power relations, locate their position, and find out their point of application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the antognisms of strategies.
For example, to find out what our society means by "sanity," perhaps we should investigate what is happening in the field of insanity.
And what we mean by "legality" in the field of illegality. And in order to understand what power relations are about, perhaps we should investigate the forms of resistance and attempts to dissociate these relations."

"To sum up, the main objective of these struggles is to attack not so much such-or-such institution of power, or group, or elite, or classs but, rather, a technique, a form of power.
This form of power that applies itself to immediate everyday life categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him that he must recognize and others have to recognize in him, It is a form of power that makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word "subject": subject to someone else by control and dependence, and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power that subjugates and makes subject to."

"What would be proper to a relationship of power, then, is that it be a mode of action on actions. That is, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not a supplementary structure over and above "society" whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. To live in society is, in any event, to live in such a way that some can act on the actions of others. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions that are necessary to transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without power relations is not to say either that those which are established are necessary, or that power in any event constitutes an inescapable fatality at the heart of societies, that it cannot be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into question of power relations and the "antgonism" between power relations and the intransitivity of freedom is an increasingly political task-even, the political task that is inherent in all social existence."

What a compelling argument, my dear user.

It isn't hard, and it's what most people start reading of his (if anything). My advice is a little unorthodox, as I recommend getting his harder stuff out of the way first (like 'The Order of Things' and 'The Archaeology of Knowledge') so you can get a grasp of what he's trying to show with his works. Or if you want to go down the route of secondary literature instead, check out O'Farrell's book as I think it summarizes Foucault nicely and clears a lot of misconceptions.

hm, ok. english isn't my first language either
brbr?

i've seen people recomending some lectures of his to get a grasp on his method. but i think i'm gonna dive straight into it

You really think Chomsky did better at that debate? I thought they were pretty even in the first half, but Foucault absolutely wrecked him during the politics portion.

Can you recc some reading more like this.

I would really recommend you to read (The Subject And) Power. michel-foucault.com/dulwich/subject.pdf or fozblog.org/archives/36830

Here more quotes:

"I don't think that we should consider the "modern state" as an entity that was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence, but, on the contrary, as a very sophisticated structure in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very specific patterns."

"Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get rid of this kind of political "double bind," which is the simultaneous individualization and totalization of modern power structures.
The conclusion would be that the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual from the state, and from the state's institutions, but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality that has been imposed on us for several centuries.
What is to be understood by the disciplining of societies in Europe since the eighteenth century is not, of course, that the individuals who are part of them become more and more obedient, nor that all societies become like barracks, schools, or prisons; rather, it is that an increasingly controlled, more rational, and economic process of adjustment has been sought between productive activities, communications networks, and the play of power relations.
To approach the theme of power by an analysis of "how" is therefore to introduce several critical shifts in relation to the supposition of a fundamental power. It is to give oneself as the object of analysis power relations and not power itself-power relations that are distinct from objective capacities as well as from relations of communication, power relations that can be grasped in the diversity of their linkages to these capacities and relations."

"Which is to say, of course, that there is no such entity as power, with or without a capital letter; global, massive, or diffused; concentrated or distributed. Power exists only as exercised by some on others, only when it is put into action, even though, of course it is inscribed in a field of sparse available possibilities underpinned by permanent structures. This also means that power is not a mattter of consent. In itself, it is not the renunciation of freedom, a transfer of rights, or power of each and all delegated to a few (which does not prevent the possibility that consent may be a condition for the existence or the maintenance of a power relation); the relationship of power may be an effect of a prior or permanent consent, but it is not by nature the manifestation of a consensus."

"When one defines the exercise of power as a mode of action upon the actions of others, when one characterizes these actions as the government of men by other men-in the broadest sense of the term-one includes an important element: freedom. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are "free." By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several kinds of conduct, several ways of reacting and modes of behavior are available. Where the determining factors are exhaustive, there is no relationship of power: slavery is not a power relationship when a man is in chains, only when he has some possible mobility, even a chance of escape. (In this case it is a question of a physical relationship of constraint.) Consequently, there is not a face-to-face confrontation of power and freedom as mutually exclusive facts (freedom disappearing everywhere power is exercised) but a much more complicated interplay. In this game, freedom may well appear as the condition for the exercise of power (at the same time its precondition, since freedom must exist for power to be exerted, and also its permanent support, since without the possibility of recalcitrance power would be equivalent to a physical determination)."

Second link not working anymore, tpb thepiratebay.org/torrent/13695514/Michel_Foucault_-_Philosophical_Works_(40_books)

Already reading it boss.

I was wondering if any academics / authors had taken up his project of an analysis of power and semi-formalized it.

idk either. Your best chance is searching for a author influenced by Foucault, but at best you will find someone who borrowed only one concept of Foucault's philosophy or just write about his work without add much.

fugg

Is that Porn Star Johnny Sins?

Have most of his stuff in the continental thread in freedu, but the torrent has a few lectures that I didn't even have. Will upload those later to the thread tonight.

Enjoy, friends-

Books: mega.nz/#F!SJgEVBCB!DYUjF51YUfyYI9N4Rm7Saw

CdF Lectures: mega.nz/#F!LNohjaYI!tSs6xvtewfkHh_kploc8Og

Other: mega.nz/#F!2FRk3ZaB!EaLvdIWAeIhmuRA7QBgtLg