Pekka, Man, We Need to Cure You of This (A Focault Filosofy Thread)

[VetLegion]

Pekka,

Having nothing better to do, reading a thread with a link to some videos about Chomsky and Focault you posted and remembering you mentioning Focault in superlatives several times, I decided to watch them. I've spent ~12 minutes on these two YouTube videos:






My conclusion:

That guy is terrible! Chomsky compared to him looks like some saint of reason descended from the heavens. That Frenchie has discovered relativism and now he thinks it's something

"Ola-la, but we can't define anything, we can't be sure of anything, maybe this, maybe that, look at me talk blablabla"

It just boggles the mind how anyone can buy into that nonsense.

I think respect for Focault is irreconcilable with the status of SuperCitizen and I demand that you either renounce him or step down from being undefeated SuperCitizen!

Of course, if I meant to adress you only I would have sent you a PM. The question of this thread can be restated as:

Can anyone explain to me how can someone as obviously clueless as that Focault guy become famous? Off the top of my mind, Hugo Chavez seems more sophisticated

[Ari Rahikkala]

Foucault

[ZEE]

these two men are so completely opposite in their thinking it is no wonder why there are certain "classes" of people that follow one or the other. It would seem to me that the more "liberal" you are you go with Chomsky. More conservative you go with "Focault." This is all very simple actually in its breakdown despite all the big words and concepts. I actually would follow a path trying to tie what these two men say together in some way. But im sure that has been thought of as well...
piece™

[Imran Siddiqui]

Foucault

Though based on the clips posted, I'm not sure what the vitriol is for. Because Foucault says "human nature", "justice", etc are products of our society? That they are defined within the contexts of our civilization? Because frankly, I think he's absolutely on the mark on the issue (and IMO, that's obviously the case, even though Chomsky does a decent job in trying to explain the opposite).

[Pekka]

VetLegion, Are you serious? He ripped Chomksy a new one. This just tells more abotu you dude.... seriously, you need more protein

Futhermore, Foucault needs studying. It's not like you'd understand his concepts unless you study them. Stop being such as pest commoner. Like he uses word such as power, knowledge etc.. these are all concepts that are not very easy to understand unless you study Foucault.

I know, if it isn't easy, then what's the worth, right? Well, I've felt it rewarding to do so. I mean, I've been doing some IS courses, and there was a course assignment to write a paper about system development using Foucault. OK, that's not a very easy task, but others had folks like Deleuze, Giddens etc. And you'll bump into these same guys in many fields, not just some of this IS theory, also accounting, management, just bunch of different fields. To ask 'well why do you need this and this' is the same as asking 'why do I need math in my life'.

Foucault has been challenged several times and he has taken the battle, this one isn't really a battle and it'¨s a short and sad clip about a punk trying to say something to superior F, but there has been some good ones... Habermas is at least a noteworthy person. Then again, you HAVE to understand what both MEAN before you can judge the battle, plus you really can't after that either.

[Pekka]

AAHZ, Well, Chomksy is not really a philosopher, so no, there's no competition. It's not a choice of 'who you follow'. If you like Chomksy, that's cool. Go see his lectures. He will tell about current events.

That's not philosophy though.

I don't see what political implications these two gentlemen have. I am a libertarian and like Foucault, but dislike Chomsky because he is a hyped linguist lecturer. Intelligent? Sure. But not worth mentioning.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Foucault

Though based on the clips posted, I'm not sure what the vitriol is for. Because Foucault says "human nature", "justice", etc are products of our society? That they are defined within the contexts of our civilization? Because frankly, I think he's absolutely on the mark on the issue (and IMO, that's obviously the case, even though Chomsky does a decent job in trying to explain the opposite).

Don't speak in absolutes

[Ecthy]

Chomsky doesn't "tell about current events" because he's totally clueless as a political analyst. He sees injustice everywhere, without supplying a basis for his broad idea of what justice is supposed to be. What I've read of him so far he just "criticizes" the United States for their pursuit of their own interest, both economicly and security-wise. Sometimes his entire criticism consists solely in stating stuff that is obvious to anyone with a clue of politics.

Now to Foucault.

"This is an extrapolation for which I can't find the historical justification"

It seems this guys, in true marxist fashion (what makes you think he's conservative?), considers not only western institutions but also western way of thinking as a superstructure to the basis of oppression, class-wise "or in some other way" as he says. Now I wonder where is the proof. I would like to follow other people's thinking structured along the basic assumption of class oppression, but so far I haven't seen any deduction out of an empirical basis. If I read some Marxist stuff I could find it, but F certainly isn't doing it in that video.

[Saras]

Interesting life:

In 1979 Foucault made two tours of Iran, undertaking extensive interviews with political protagonists in support of the new interim government established soon after the Iranian Revolution. His many essays on Iran, published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, only appeared in French in 1994 and then in English in 2005. These essays caused some controversy, with some commentators arguing that Foucault was insufficiently critical of the new regime.See Foucault and the Iranian Revolution: Gender and the Seductions of Islamism, by Janet Afary (Author), Kevin B. Anderson (Author)[citation needed]

In San Francisco of the 1970s and early 1980s, Foucault participated in the subcultures of anonymous gay sex and sadomasochism — it is suspected that it was there that he contracted HIV, in the days before the disease was described as such.

Foucault died of an AIDS-related illness in Paris June 25th, 1984. He was the first high profile French personality who was reported to have had AIDS. Very little was known about the disease at the time and the event was mired in controversy.

[Pekka]

"
It seems this guys, in true marxist fashion (what makes you think he's conservative?), considers not only western institutions but also western way of thinking as a superstructure to the basis of oppression, class-wise "or in some other way" as he says. Now I wonder where is the proof. I would like to follow other people's thinking structured along the basic assumption of class oppression, but so far I haven't seen any deduction out of an empirical basis. If I read some Marxist stuff I could find it, but F certainly isn't doing it in that video."

Foucault is NOT conservative. He was even a communist or at least a symphatizer for some time. Definitely not conservative. Foucault does not ... when we talk about oppression and all these things, OK, what you have to understand is that these generic words have a spesific meaning when he talks about it and they are according to his theories. OK, and when he talks about projecting power and power in general, it does not mean the power we know of. It's a concept. It's not negative or positive by default, and neither is projecting power. In fact projecting power would be putting it wrong, since power in his concept is something that no one owns. Humans are merely relays of it.

You have to understand the concepts before you can follow what he is saying, basically it's a pain in the ass but if one is interested, it's very interesting IMO.

What you're talking about is in other words the western discourse or how it is created or used or maintained. It doesn't necessarily mean there's an entity, a group of people or a person doing it. Interpreting Foucault requires getting to know his work.

[Ecthy]

Yeah and I would like some specific inquiry on your behalf. If you're going to tell everyone "understand Foucault befor eyou talk of him" then we can as well close this thread. On a sidenote: have you understoof Foucault if you cannot explain his points?

[Pekka]

Well what is your question then?

And no, I don't claim to understand all his points perfectly. I still have lots of area to cover. But I do know that's not what he means in its simplistic form, that western way of thinking is a superstructure that is basically oppressing its people into.. the way of thinking.

Do note, that Foucault is not super political. He doesn't have the style of Chomsky. if you want to compare Foucault and his stuff, for example Habermas is one. You woudlnt' compare Habermas and Chomsky, or politics. Let's not mix up levels and classes.

[Ecthy]

I already said that Chomsky is an idiot who talks about politics from a practical point of view without knowing any basics of how it works (call it theory if you want). Habermas is considered, among other things, a political theorist in Germany, so he's quite different from Chomsky.

My question is more general than Foucault: what makes marxists think that class oppression or oppression in general is the basis of all social action? Is it the assumption that power is the basis of inter-human action and that in a more complex society this power must be of an economic form? And how do YOU define power if not in the traditional sense?

[Pekka]

OK so I was wrong about Habermas' position as political figure or commentator of the phenomenon. It might be even extensively so, I have only introduced myself into some of the frameworks that has some benefit in social issues of information systems. Yes, sometimes it's a reach, but it gives new perspectives. Sometimes it doesn't.

Oh not Foucault's power? That would be a very different thing though, should be noted. And it IS pain in the ass, because it's kind of .. vast and at least I had to struggle with the ideas quite a bit and I still do. I should be critical too, F never gave us a real framework, thus it's difficult to debate against him, now you have to debate kind of with him and step to the defensive side, because usually the counterpart actually HAS a framework. So, that sucks.

I don't consider money being a tool of power, except in more traditional sense. I don't consider power to be a tool that you can use to ... make people do things to either benefit you or just to make the situation the best for you or the way you want it to be. This could be the RESULT of power, but not power in itself.

I wouldn't even consider market forces or .. advertising power. By this I mean if advertising is able to affect your consuming behaviour, or make you consume even if you don't really need to, I don't consider that power, except in the traditional sense.

The problem I have with the traditional concept is that it acts like a tool to be used. I use power. I am powerful etc. I don't consider certain people having power (except in traditional sense, via how much their opinion means comparing to others), I don't consider it to be a tool, even an abstract one. OK, I'm not saying power isn't this or it is objectively. I use the word power in my daily life in traditional sense.

I consider power to be something that moves, it can't be captured by an individual. It is a dynamic abstract, that flows. I don't have classes for power, where for example being able to affect you would be a low form of power and then being able to affect everyone would be high form. So in order for someone to be powerful, they'd need to be able to obtain it and I don't think a person can have power as something he owes. But a person can tap into the stream for sure.

[Pekka]

So an example of power?

Ok. I'd consider dystopias as situations where power flows a lot. To me, power has an attribute that makes the mean itself work, like biology almost.

Socialist dystopia. It's not that the leadership attacks the dissidents, it's that the people attack the dissidents. When you would disagree with socialist whatever, let's make it a bit authoritarian, then when I'd stand up and disagree, I'd be attacking the people and their welfare. OK, so the leadership doesn't have to debate me. The masses will take care of that. They will take it personally. That is, their reality, which is subjective (this is the only way we can function as a society that makes sense blaablaablaa) is fighting your reality, it can be more narrow or more extensive.

Say that people wouldn't know other models exists. But you would know. Say the leadership is corrupt even and uses it's authority questionably. So you are now a dissident, speaking out that this is what's going on, it isn't right, we could have other alternatives. In a situation where power is flowing heavily, having an effect on reality for the masses, they not only dump the idea, they will never consider it. It's not part of reality. You are attacking the system, you are therefor attacking the people, and most of all, you are attacking the weak ones in the society. It's like biology. Ants take care of the big picture. You have no chance. Reality is what it is for some, we can't live outside our reality.

That I consider to be power.