[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 61 KB, 349x470, foucault08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6545729 No.6545729 [Reply] [Original]

Michael Foucault thread. Wow. How exciting...

Could you agree that our existential anxiety is why we have the need for power and knowledge?

>> No.6545736

>>6545729
That's Nietzschean and wrong. I don't believe in a natural man.

>> No.6545752

>>6545729

I don't even know whether there is an inherent need for power and knowledge that we feel.

>> No.6545761

>>6545729
>existential anxiety
>Foucault

for god's sake, read a book

>> No.6545763

>>6545729
you just have it backwards. power and knowledge creates resistance, which leads to anxiety.

>> No.6545765

>>6545752
Do you agree with individualism. If yes/no --->why?

>> No.6545833

Foucault first read, History of Sexuality or Discipline and punish

What should I read?

>> No.6545851

>>6545833
discipline and punish is a very easy read. go for it.

>> No.6545864

>>6545851

ok ty

>> No.6545866

>>6545833
>>6545851
History of Sexuality Vol 1 is actually a much easier read than Discipline and Punish but they are both essential complements concerning his explication of knowledge-power.

I'd read Discipline and Punish first to get a foundation in his methodology and structural framework. You'll know why technology, apparatus, knowledge-power, the confession, articulation, and such mean while they are just sort of thrown out as assumed in HoS.

But vol 1 of History of Sexuality is such a fun book. Foucault seems to have been having a ball writing it. Plus you'll see more clearly why power-knowledge does not equal discipline.

>> No.6545880

>>6545866

thanks, I will read discipline and punish and HoS then

>> No.6545904

Check out some of his lectures; I find them easier to grasp than his books

https://viewpointmag.com/2012/09/12/the-mesh-of-power/

>> No.6545927

>>6545866
I am currently bogged down in the latter half of History of Sexuality vol. 1. I was following his arguments fine, but then he starts getting too abstract, and totally loses me.

>> No.6545953

>>6545729
>Read quick summery of his ideas
Sounds like more obscurantist bullshit.

>> No.6546020

>>6545736
>That's Nietzschean

No, it's Kierkegaardian.

>> No.6546036

>>6545953
>assessing academic stuff through quick summaries

Next time give us our opinion on anabelian geometry after having read the wikipedia article.

>implying you could even understand the article

I know, my bad.

>> No.6546043

Humanity cannot be boiled down to power relations.

>> No.6546044

>>6545953
>reading a summary

laughinghegel.pdf

>> No.6546084

>>6546036
>anabelian geometry
the comparison is disgusting and ironic since you almost surely got that from the wiki for the latest meme scientist, the interuniversal teichmullerino himself

>> No.6546113

>>6546084
I got that from no wiki, and it's abelian geometry is common enough that the idea that there are anabelian geometries appear sensible.

But right, if you're afraid of muh meme replace anabelian geometry by bayesian statistics or even Galois theory or why not sprectral theory. Being picky won't make you appear any less stupid.

>> No.6546142

>>6546113
yeah those intro graduate class terms have me quivering in my skivvies

>> No.6546156

>>6546043
Every time two people interact they subconsciously take on the role of the dominant or the subordinate.

This can manifest itself in very subtle ways.

>> No.6546185

>>6546142
Okay. I'm not sure why you posted this, but okay.

>> No.6546194

>>6546156
Why do we do that? That is the question.

Oh, yea... Wikipedia is the only thing worth reading. Books are overrated. Reading full books is very time consuming and should be replaced with simpler ways of acquiring information.

>> No.6546240

>>6546156
That's not what power means at all for Foucault and I wrote out why you're wrong and captcha ate it so suffice it to say that power is a technical term and does not mean domination or limitation.

>> No.6547838

>>6545729
>>6545736
Neither Foucault nor Nietzsche was an existentialist.

>> No.6547839

>>6545729
>we have the need for power and knowledge
>we
>implying we stand outside of power and knowledge
Have you even read Foucault?

>> No.6547843

>>6545833
his Collège de France lectures if you're a trve patrician, er, I mean foucauldian

>> No.6547848

>>6545927
P R O T E V I
R
O
T
E
V
I

He's got outlines on his website, pretty useful for orientation. Also, there's a guide to HoS1 on libgen, didn't read it myself, but it's probably worth checking out.

>> No.6547857

>>6546156
>>6546240
This. Power is not merely a relation that is established when two persons come together. Persons themselves are soaked in power relations as it is, it is through power that they are constituted as persons or subjects in the first place.
If you've read Nietzsche then think of his critique of the soul/subject/I that he replaces with endless becoming and body as a hierarchy of forces.

>> No.6547860

>>6547857
is that like a hierarchy of being?

>> No.6547862

>>6545904
>https://viewpointmag.com/2012/09/12/the-mesh-of-power/
Damn, this is nice.

>> No.6547917

> you will never take acid with Foucault and have a limit experience where he fucks you in the middle of a panopticon

>> No.6547924

>>6547860
Nah, since the great chain of being presupposes some kind of fixed order and fixed identities.
What Foucault is saying is that you're *not* a pre-existing subject who would only secondarily come into contact with some external power, meaning also that power is *not* primarily repressive. Power is always already there, it speaks through your words and acts, and it is what made you recognize yourself as a subject. And the way you recognize or "constitute" yourself as a subject depends on the type of power at that time and place. So you've got Ancient Greeks that become subjects via the notion of excellence and moderation, but you've also got Medieval Christians that become subject via the notion of, let's say, obedience and humility.
This is a very rough explanation, but I hope you get the idea.

>> No.6547938
File: 462 KB, 3216x2136, 1409444866704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6547938

>>6545729
>existential anxiety
to me, this thing is boredom.
but I do not link boredom to power. I link boredom to the non-boredom, aka activity.
Then people do what they like and a power comes only after being pushed onto the real, especially a human form instead of some objects like a table.
Everything to acknowledge our existence, to make us feel alive. Sex is the prime instance of this quest for the feel.

>> No.6547940

>>6547917
>you will never listen to Boulez with Foucault and ask him what he thinks of noise music

>> No.6547945

>>6547924
thanks for taking the time, thats really helpful. does he talk about the differences between "types of power"? because that seems to me to be the most interesting part (of the rough explanation). otherwise instead of exploring the concept of power it's like he's just turned it into some bland arbitrary thing. maybe i'm too pleb to get it, i should read him first.

>> No.6547960

>>6547945
Yeah, he actually speaks about different types of power all the time. He rarely offers any abstract or universal theory of power and actually says at numerous times that he's not interested in any "theory of power", what he wants instead is to study particular mechanisms and rationalities of this or that power, and how these different types of power came to be historically.
The reason there's all this emphasis on Foucault's theoretical side is because of the influence of academia, IMO. His own works put way way more emphasis on historical details.