Chapter 2.4: Michel Foucault, epistemes

This video is part of the series: 'The Philosophy of the Humanities' which you can find here • Philosophy of the Huma...
For more videos on Philosophy by Victor Gijsbers go to:
/ @victorgijsbers
Intromusic: "Styley" by Gorowski (www.wmrecordings.com/tag/gorow...)

[@vedanshvedansh844]

Thank you, Lord Jesus, for bringing this informative vdo to us lesser being.

[@Squancher69]

He is Lord Jesus? His name is Victor Gijsbers.

[@Brandon-ik6ty]

He looks like Jesus and sounds like Beelzebub 🎉

[@gwendeseminat8r]

the first among you shall be the last

[@lesleymartin7552]

One of the clearest explanations of 'episteme' I have come across - with relevant examples

[@noelt.1013]

Excellent piece! Foucault's caution against Western focus on individualist methodologies is actually in accordance with the primordial role that many cultures, notably African societies, assign to the dynamics of interdependency. For instance, a keen student of Bantu philosophy can seldom take seriously Des Cartes' idea: "Je pense, donc je suis [I think, so I am." For, in Bantu world, being is belonging. Bishop Desmond Tutu has articulated very well this reality, arguing: " I am because I belong, I participate, I share." This is the kind of episteme worth taking seriously.

[@punkpoetry]

This is fascinating, thank you. You’re right regarding Foucault, though in many significant ways he always remained very Eurocentric, while also challenging many European doxas. Guess it’s inevitable...

[@michaelrandall6957]

That is very nice and beautiful, but it does miss the very central point about what Descartes was trying to do. Descartes was hellbent on finding real 'truth', and argued that I cannot know that some demon has not put a veil over his eyes and mind and is tricking him into believing he is alive (think of it today as you cannot know if you are in the matrix). Because, according to Descartes, we dream and hallucinate, so clearly our senses cannot be trusted. And so, he spent a considerable amount of time considering how to prove the existence of himself and others. 'Cogito ergo sum' is the start of this. His argument? I cannot know that anything exists, but my mind is thinking thoughts, so clearly on some fundamental level, there must be a mind that thinks, and therefore I exist. Descartes goes on to argue for the existance of God, the duality of the body/mind and a host of other things that don't quite make up for his interesting demolition of reality. But his ideas is still affecting the world. The sentence gets thrown around quite a lot but a lot of people don't really stop to reflect on what he was doing or what is his argument was for. In sum, Descartes may well agree that belonging is a beautiful sentiment and REASON to live, but this sentiment would not help his argument for if the world and existence is real.

[@JS-dt1tn]

@@michaelrandall6957 well, we all acknowledge today that Descartes' argument is poor, given the uncritical way in which he assumes God's existence so as to anticipate a ground-floor of his knowledge; that being the awareness of himself as a thinking thing. What the person above was attempting to display, however, is that before we can categorize ourself as a thinking thing, we must first belong to a whole culture or episteme in which our notion of thinking thing might be included into the accepted discourse. While Descartes' argument is clearly subjective, and even parochial towards an entire paradigm of epistemes, it is harder for us to acknowledge that even the notion of a thinking thing is itself something equally parochial and partial.

[@ambiguism]

The bestiary example clarified the work of the episteme in a way that has been hard to find online. Thanks a lot

[@francesoconnor6896]

Thank you! The best explanation of the episteme that I have encountered!

[@ulibaer5805]

Fantastic series, great explanations and examples. Congratulations

[@rodsnyder6020]

Major achievement to break down such a big theory into these well comprehensible chunks. Thanks a lot for that! the unconsiuos reminds me of Habermas' "Vorwissenschaftlichen Erfahrungen" (pre-scientific experiences).

[@theforcewithin369]

"If those arrangements [the fundamental arrangements of knowledge] were to disappear as they appeared... then one can certainly wager that man would be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea." “It is comforting, however, and a source of profound relief to think that man is only a recent invention, a figure not yet two centuries old, a new wrinkle in our knowledge, and that he will disappear again as soon as that knowledge has discovered a new form.” Michel Foucault

[@leocaballerorojo2348]

outstanding presentations! Congratulations and respect.

[@tuomasansio]

Thank you! This helped me with "The order of things" I had something like this in my mind but you put it well together.

[@tayareid3761]

W

[@manpreetdhillon8964]

The first video on KZbin that I have seen with zero dislike! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world in such a simple and beautiful explanation. Please do a video on dispositif', it will be fascinating to hear your explanation of it.

[@CamilaGiordani]

The best explanation ever! Regards from Brazil!

[@VictorGijsbers]

Thanks to both of you!

[@choccomonde]

It's like a paradigm is a frontend development, and episteme is a backend. Awesome content, I actually subscribed :)

[@radwael-bassossi7471]

I benefited a lot from your presentation. Thank you so much!

[@manpreetdhillon8964]

The first video on KZbin that I have seen with zero dislike! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world in such a simple and beautiful explanation. Pls do a vdo on 'dispositif', it will be fascinating to hear your explanation of it.

[@asd9508]

My friend, you are a legend. Thanks a lot!

[@mihadhusain7067]

fantastic video with ten minutes i can read a book and get new idea the presenter excellent

[@yakinimoseley6792]

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

[@dodiehorton5355]

Just brilliant. Thank you.

[@danycortes5362]

Excellent! Thank you so much, you really helped me. Saludos desde México.

[@annapurna6344]

Great explanation. U make it easier, Thanks

[@shivnarayan1651]

What's the name of this Man? He done wonder on interpretation of Focualt!! Thanks

[@AimeeTio]

It's Victor Gijsbers, he's a lecturer at Leiden University! His lectures are also the funniest I've ever attended.

[@kuchuksary]

Thank you so much!!! I hope that one day I will study in your university

[@bonobobanani3893]

thank you so much for this video. I love u

[@jennyboanca473]

Thank you SO much. I'm trying to write my final essay on Foucalt but I can't make sense of my lecturers interpretation. You're saving me here!

[@Alina-xt8eh]

hey queen I hope it went well

[@jennyboanca473]

@@Alina-xt8eh you dote!! It’s still going but going much better than it was before these xx

[@aristoteles4723]

@@jennyboanca473 Now I need a follow up. How was it?

[@jennyboanca473]

@@aristoteles4723 I got a first class hon :) thank you for asking!! X

[@carlosmanuelsanturtunbecer4174]

This video was very helpful for my research project, thank you so much for this amazing​ video.

[@sabahal-akbari7269]

Wow Wonderful explanation I really want to attend his class

[@suddafbutt7119]

Thanks very helpful, could you please name what are those three epestemes according to Foucault? Thanks

[@HN-ls6rd]

Good lecture. Thanks

[@louiselaw3184]

very good. great speaker

[@gaviota508]

Muchas gracias!

[@nancywood5126]

Nice explanation!

[@jamaicaigot9335]

hey there, really enjoyed the video - would love to get these as audio only, are you on audea?

[@HauteBabe]

Damn about that social rule of always being dressed. It could've made this lecture from awesome to really lit 🔥

[@a5dr3]

Well done.

[@paulv.holten2649]

Erg duidelijk. Go on dear son!!

[@thereover5438]

thank you!

[@martin36369]

Paradigm as in paradigm theory is itself a misnomer, if it is true & if it itself is an example of a paradigm what will replace it? Also historically it's not true, although General Relativity "replaced" Newtonian theory, for most cases Newtonian calculations are the ones used as the mathematics of General Relativity are much more difficult, so we don't have "Paradigm Theory" but "Paradigms Theory", where they co-exist

[@veronicagorosito187]

GRT didn't replaced Newtonian calculus, it enhanced and gave it a more precise process, thus, offering the best result in order to understand Physics. Science is based on new ''better'' and deeper understanding of old ''imprecise'' one. Or even proving it WRONG and replacing it with actual facts, checked and rechecked ad nauseaum. That's how Scientific Method works so well and why Philosophy fails in understanding that....

[@Bestmann3n]

@@veronicagorosito187 Doing calculations is not the same thing as doing science. The mathematics of newtons theory agree well with GR within certain parameters but the concepts and mechanics are completely different. So Newtons theory is not embedded in GR since they aren't compatible on a conceptual or mechanical level. Philosophers don't usually take issue with the Scientific Method. What they question is whether most science is actually done according to the Scientific Method.

[@drajatdiky]

5:49 someone grin at him while he says 'completely naked' lol

[@HauteBabe]

That T shirt is everything

[@rogersyversen3633]

but a change of episteme cant be just around the corner because they are defined retrospectively, right?

[@veronicagorosito187]

The mere concept of 'episteme' is just hermenutics with different words. Foucault hated Science.

[@ivanabenassai6162]

❤️❤️❤️❤️

[@liyuabebetaye5553]

Thanks

[@Xargxes]

Deze gast is zo goed!

[@thomasboguszewski7288]

So could an episteme be described as an Overton window for paradigms?

[@suddenuprising]

interesting perspective

[@alexeyprofi3951]

no

[@adele3368]

:) Good video

[@AK-mt6id]

Thanks Jesus..

[@michaeldao2249]

This sounds a lot like the "they" in Being and Time

[@dollydrill5816]

So modern epistemes would be IQ and race?

[@fakedonttrackmevro6629]

Wow jus blew my mind. With that question.

[@abcrane]

Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich were up against the episteme in sexology, and the pathology thus continues.

[@agnivaray7476]

You’re great, but I would love to ask why you’re referring to knowledge as science; for the former is an umbrella term, while the latter much more surgical! Just wanted to know your views.

[@xxx6555]

In my opinion, one of Foucault's contributions to the philosophical/historical study of science is that, he manages to prove that the apparent clear-cut line between a "science" and the "knowledge in general", according to the actual history of any science, is actually not that clear and definite...

[@alassanendao8941]

Science comes from the latin world scientia which means knowledge. Maybe this is why he refers to knowledge as science

[@veronicagorosito187]

@@xxx6555 Science is an act, the act of using the Scientific Method to produce scientific results that are proven real facts. Science is not knowledge, but contributes to it. Science is the act of observation of phenomena in order to understand it. This produces changes in the society exposed to those facts in a way that the actual social knowledge is more precise than before. Knowledge is a broad term and is not related to Science per se, as knowledge can involve non scientific acts as daily labor which doesn't needs detailed, deep, precise empiric observation to prove itself as a fact.

[@walterbenjamin1386]

Is that really how one pronounces episteme? I have been mispronouncing this for years.

[@lalsurya2275]

" the episteme of a period is not the sum of its knowledge, nor the general style of its research, but the divergence, the distances, the oppositions and differences the relations of its various scientific discourses: the episteme is not a sort of grand underlying theory, it is a space of dispersion" Can u pls xplain what xatly is meant by 'not a sort of grand underlying theory'??? & 'space of dispersion' all about???? Can it be called as ideology???

[@coronatempo721]

AND what are these 3 ONLY epistemes in the last 500 years????

[@xxx6555]

1. resemblance; 2. representation; 3. "man".

[@RodriguezCarlitos-hd7ti]

Why do I wear cloths? I'm going to run with THAT one!

[@fakedonttrackmevro6629]

So America is seeing a paradigm shift in politics right now.

[@Ephebiphobe]

Is this a Dutch accent?

[@Blubberbeest]

Yes

[@esdet105]

If the unconscious rules get exposed, they're not unconscious anymore, and still have no effect on what is taken seriously by that scientific community.

[@flourishforever]

You should check your terminology. Foucault would no agree with your approach in many instances. For example, episteme is not the underground assumptions. It is the rules of formation of discourse. It is quite different from Kuhn's scientific paradigms.

[@VictorGijsbers]

If you look at the definition of episteme I put on around 6:16, I do define it explicitly in terms of discourse. For Foucault -- at least at this stage of his thinking, perhaps made most explicit in The Archaeology of Knowledge -- discourse is indeed primary. But precisely because it is primary, we can say that the rules governing serious discourse are the underlying assumptions of the particular field of knowledge. I doubt Foucault would disagree with that, as long as we were careful not to interpret these phrases too psychologically. (If you think I'm wrong, I would of course be very much obliged if you could point my either to a relevant passage in Foucault or to a relevant secondary source.)

[@radioactivedetective6876]

@@VictorGijsbers If I am to sum up in my own words: By the term Episteme Foucault refers to those underlying codes and rules and assumptions and values (and so on) ingrained in society in a particular epoch which mould/guide that particular society's concept of knowledge, what knowledge is to be pursued, how to pursue that knowledge, and so on. - is that right?

[@radioactivedetective6876]

@@VictorGijsbers Will I be wrong in thinking that "conditions of possibility" is a materialistic approach?

[@AstroSquid]

It's a matter of tribal epistemes to believe a scholar use of language to describe reality, it's an assumption of status perhaps, to forget the effect of suggesting language can have on a person, to seek status to repeating the commonly standard of an idea of a philosopher. Tribalism is all the postmodernist are talking about. I think the nature and genetics that guide how we seek knowledge in relation to status via language is something we seek more. So seeing the world through the eye's of language isn't the best way to understand truth, when the very nature of tribalism on deeper levels isn't understood. If you take away tribalism from the individual you will reveal universal truths, as I think postmodernism ignores that all together. Example unless I'm a famous and well know philosopher with status and respect in a tribe, I could criticize postmodernism all I want and no one will care. I could be saving the world with my critique but because I'm an individual with no status in this field I will be ignored. I'm talking against the episteme of tribe. If my words could raise people status in tribe I would be rich and famous, regardless of truth.

[@veronicagorosito187]

Those philosophers seem to have an agenda and it's based on injecting the idea that reality (matter) can be created with language (words), thus, enhancing, validating and being absolutely functional to religion (magical thinking, the Verb, the Word, creating objects with just saying words, etc). Also Kant based all of his work on magical thinking, implying that if I don't see the Moon, so the Moon doesn't exists till I see it. But if I close my eyes, the Moon disappears from existence (!!!!), or that the Moon is ''me saying 'moon' '', thus, making it ''to exist with my words'', etc. That's the most ridiculous conception about Physics. It was the same debate that had Einstein being really pissed at Bohr because he couldn't accept his dear friend maintained a silly and unintelligent assupmtion like that. (Einstein - Bohr's debate).

[@Magdoulin]

I object mentioning Freud amongst this list of the geatest men, I object mentioning his name at all when the wod science is mentioned, generally speaking

[@evangelosgeronicolas2385]

I think it is important to distinguish between doing something automatically and doing it unconsciously. Putting on a shirt is a conscious decision. Indeed, you are so conscious of the social code of behaviour that you do not need to focus on it any more. You simply put on your shirt automatically. On the other hand, a natural language is learnt unconsciously. A child speaks fluently being unconscious of grammar. But a foreign fluent speaker does not speak unconsciously; he speaks automatically. He was never unconscious of grammar, and even when he forgets some rules, it still remains an automatic process. This is why he can realize that he has forgotten some rule, and he also knows where to go and look it up.

[@truebomba]

Is this some distinction that figures in Foucault's work? I don't know much, but how we acquire natural language seems kind of controversial between Faucolt and Chomsky, so is this distinction related to this disagreement?

[@evagelosgeronicolas4019]

@@truebomba The comment was only meant to clarify the distinction between the meaning of the words 'automatic' and 'unconscious' used in the video.

[@RineGal]

As a linguist, I really want to commend you for using female pronouns instead of male pronouns when talking about a random scientist/historian/person. Gender equality for the win!

[@LoveSisiLove]

@Der Gorghast You have to be quite full of yourself to call yourself a "rationalist".

[@LoveSisiLove]

@Der Gorghast Ok, so you're just a troll

[@harrytd]

@RineGal Give it a rest....please

[@harrytd]

@jose sanchez .....😂 that's a joke comment, right? You are taking the piss? Or at least unintentionally funny. Excellent!

[@harrytd]

@jose sanchez ......😂😂 cool. Top trolling ...in an intelligent way.

[@veronicagorosito187]

Philosophers: racism is caused by Science (blame Darwin). Science: skin doesn't have any color. BLM: are you saying that we do not exist???? Science: no, it's just that NOTHING has color in first place. Philosophers: ok, color is not even in your mind, but ''just a subjective perception''. Also philosophers: you can create things with words. Science: NO. That's magical thinking and irrational and leads to violence & wars. Philosophers: Reality is not even made of matter, but our subjective perception, hence, we can create reality. Religions: (yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss).

[@farizramli8681]

What's BLM? is this an argument against something specific or are you just typing out the incoherent dialogue inside your head?

[@veronicagorosito187]

@@farizramli8681 Black Lives Matter (BLM). I can't help you understand the science of skin ''color'', as white is not a skin color, but pale, or lack of melanine. And black is the same skin with much higher melanine. There's not white, nor black races. WE are only one, human race with different phenotypes. Anyway I won't discuss with someone who don't have content. Incoherence is in your ignorance first.

[@farizramli8681]

​@@veronicagorosito187 Genuinely perplexed by your response. I can't seem to pinpoint what your overarching argument here is, primarily in relation to the video. Are you disagreeing with Foucault's notion of the episteme, or are you making a political point? Mind you, I am not American hence the first question. So, your argument is that skin colour has to do only with gene expression resulting in phenotypes, so its only foundation (or lack thereof) is different levels of melanin. In that sense, races are arbitrary except for that fact; which is a view that racial eliminativism and skepticism commonly holds. Let's say I agree with you. What I still do not understand is how all this ties back together. Are you against racial constructionism? Even if so, what is the relevance to this video and the concept of epistemes? What has Black Lives Matter got to do with it? Which philosophers are you referring to when you say that 'also philosophers: you can create things with words'?

[@user-eh3lj7ff1w]

This dude has copied The New Episteme by Elly Molina, however, he has presented Foucauldian idea in a comprehensive way.

[@AstroSquid]

Going from a cultural leap to shirts, and comparing that to science. Believing that unconscious rules effect science in the same way shirt wearing it a huge illogical leap. It's a human assumption to believe that. It used to be considered "science" to understand that gravity was "something going to it's natural place", Foucault's assumption about science isn't an apples to apples comparison it's like humans do their natural things. The way you treat a child isn't the same as you treat an adult, it isn't the same as how you would research for fact using science. Foucault doesn't believe that humans are creative and they are limited to their culture, that's the core of his point, and that throughout history has been proven wrong repeatedly through science.

[@yakinimoseley6792]

I also think similarly, but Foucault here is not arguing against creativity in science. He is warning about the danger of the episteme. Simply Leaving the idea of Episteme as is, means no free will. Focault would’ve been proven wrong if we simply mentioned all the new discoveries and creations in culture.

[@AstroSquid]

@@yakinimoseley6792 Ever see the debate between Foucault and Chomsky? I think episteme of intellectuals and language opens forms of abuse against biology. As intellectuals are using logic found in language to make judgments of biology and it's influence on behaviors to seek a rational to ignore biology's imperatives.

[@nathanhuber5333]

foucault had a powerful mind but wasted it sadly... his thinking is too circular and lazy. his principles are now being bastardized to destroy basic cause and effect priciples and the very foundation of questioning theories. Its sad. As though the scientific theory or idea has anything to do with the color of someones skin or the place from which the idea came... give me a break. The idea is either good and works or is flawed and doesn't work. Has nothing to do with the person who comes up with the idea. The dangers of weak thought.

[@Cibershadow2]

Maybe the presentation is circular and lazy. But Foucault brings up the fact that ideas don't come from a vaccuum, they come from the society they were formed in. In the same way that there was an episteme about how to do science, there were epistemes on *who* was deemed capable of doing science. As an example, a plantation slave may have had the exact same "good and working" ideas as a university academic in the 1800s, but that would not make the ideas valid in the eyes of society. Racial and gender epistemes were only challenged recently, and in some ways may still be around, so I would argue that an idea can be good and working and still not taken seriously because of epistemes surrounding the person who came up with the idea. This does not extend only to race and gender, an example you may prefer extends to class. If (somehow) a farmer with no more than highschool level knowledge asked for a grant from a university research comitee to carry out a study, he would likely be denied even if his idea was sound. They may do so on the grounds that they don't believe the farmer to be capable of carrying out such a study accurately. In some fields, women and people of colour still claim to suffer from these barriers, and I would personally be inclined to believe them, having been in academia myself.

[@juhamiettinen9517]

Paradigm is not understood as its first and main base as spatial, common understanding even without words and by so this explanation fails badly. I'm not fan of Kühn, but even less Foucault. Cultureantrophology or history of science are not answers the questions philosophy.

[@veronicagorosito187]

Philosophers are arbitrary & openly marxists that fails to understand what and how Science works lol If there are someone that thinks this statement is wrong: Tell me about a rightwing philosopher and there you have it...

[@liyexiang666]

the drawing on his t shirt is literally horrible

[@ReTr093]

About the only relevant social theory anyone in humanities studies. Rest is all trash lol.

[@dramsaysteele]

Most histories of the WWII explain it largely in terms of major collective forces rather than merely individual decisions. This is totally commonplace. The role of unnoticed assumptions in thinking is maybe not quite so tediously banal, but still, not a surprise to any educated person. By the way, standing up and gesticulating is less effective than sitting at your desk, and that shirt sucks. Nudity would have added momentary interest, but ultimately would distract from your content.

[@manpreetdhillon8964]

The first video on KZbin that I have seen with zero dislike! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world in such a simple and beautiful explanation. Pls do a vdo on 'dispositif', it will be fascinating to hear your explanation of it.