Michel Foucault on Power (1976)

[@ReynaSingh]

More on Foucault please

[@richardwillford2418]

His philosophy or his resumé as a pedophile rapist?

[@edmundburke9477]

Foucault is the father of falsehoods who denied whether there is a truth. If you are listening him, you are not listening to truth aq to his own theory

[@OsvaldoBayerista]

@@edmundburke9477 Calm down, have you read the guy? read the philosopher before making an idea, listening some guy in youtube that you like saying "foucault postmodern bad bad" is not enough.

[@edmundburke9477]

@@OsvaldoBayerista Why would you presume that I have not read this pedo guy? Roger Scruton has dissected this guy completely in his work . In Les mots et les choses (1966)we are told by this enlightened progressive that man is a recent invention, The idea of man is as fragile and transitory as any other idea in the history of human understanding, and must give way under the impulse of a new episteme (a new structure of knowledge) to something that we cannot yet name. Each episteme, for Foucault, is the servant of some rising power, and has had, as its principal function, the creation of a ‘truth’ that serves the interest of power. Hence there are no received truths that are not also convenient truths. Such falsehoods by this flat headed insipid nauseating illiterate charlatan can be worshipped as an immortal wisdom by his mercenary followers only.

[@guldenaydin9918]

More...💐

[@marchdarkenotp3346]

Please do more on Foucault, it's good to see the doxa piss their pants and cry when they see him.

[@Mindstangle]

Ok groomer Have you been to any university in the last 10 years? Whose opinions prevail there? Do you support his movement to remove the age of consent?

[@Ceronocero]

There's power, and then there are Internet comments, which are powerless

[@Mindstangle]

@@Ceronocero then why are you guys trying to legalize your pedophilia through internet comments

[@Ceronocero]

@@Mindstangle Get help dude

[@marchdarkenotp3346]

The people who condemn Foucault are of the same mind as those who condemned Socrates to death, for both are lauded for what the authoritative doxa claims as "corrupting the youth". Age of consent is a liberal fiction used to reproduce power relations. Non-philosophers, cry about it.

[@jamesbarlow6423]

9:00ff. This scheme is remarkably reminiscent of a remark made by Sutherland/Col. X to Costner/Garrison in JFK where he says, "Remember that the functioning organizational principle for any society is for war" (!). Very Foucaltian!

[@ghamessmona]

❤

[@alighori89]

When things get interesting, video ends!

[@francescos7361]

Immenso Foucault

[@deathvalleydruids892]

Throughout Foucault's life, most of the French intelligentsia were avowed Marxists who differed on matters of detail. Foucault himself went through phases of intense interest in Marxism (specifically Maoism) and anarchism, but, as a radical skeptic, he was never comfortable enough to assert a commitment to a political position. In this video, we hear Foucault present one of his typically sophisticated approaches to the "analysis of power." He is plainly addressing himself to an audience that he assumes is largely committed to one or another interpretation of Marxism. My sense is that the purpose of his lecture is to persuade this audience of the legitimacy of an analysis of power relations that is not bound by the Marxist conviction in the primacy of economic relations. He sets two historically influential theories of political power in opposition: what he calls "the classical legal theory of power," which is primarily based on the social contract theory of Rousseau, and "the general Marxist conception of power." At the end of these fifteen minutes, I can see that Foucault doesn't present a third alternative to these two theories of political power so much as he assimilates them into what he takes to be the deepest theory of all: his own adaptation of Nietzsche's doctrine of the will to power. It's worth noting that Foucault never promoted the whole of Nietzsche's authentic philosophy. The subsequent legacy of Foucauldean postmodernism reveals this in its unconscious commitment to the norms of the "slave morality" that Nietzsche detested. This video ends with Foucault rebranding the two theories of political power he began with. Rousseau's social contract theory becomes "the contract-oppression schema" of political power. It is opposed to "the war-repression or domination-repression schema" of political power, which Foucault describes by employing the common Marxian terms "struggle and submission." It appears as though Foucault's lecture here was designed to convince his audience that Marx's doctrine of economic determinism was an inadequate and yet incipient version of his interpretation of Nietzsche's analysis of power. "Politics is the continuation of war by other means." This continuous war is between, not economic classes, but conflicting wills in a struggle to impose their respective values upon everyone else. Foucault's teaching was a liberation for the countless bibliographies of term papers subsequently written by angst-ridden adolescents: "I hate my life. I blame you and the structures of your system designed to make me hate my life (cf. Foucault)."

[@Mindstangle]

In an interview with the French public TV channel France 5 on March 5, Sorman confirmed that while visiting Foucault, he “witnessed what Foucault did with young children in Tunisia … ignoble things. The possibility of consent could not be sought. These were things of extreme moral ugliness.”

[@deathvalleydruids892]

I wouldn't be surprised if the allegations were true, but those who are convinced that Foucault's teaching provides a justification for their political views aren't going to change their minds if he's posthumously outed and cancelled for being a sleazy pedo. His ideas have already been synthesized into a number of activist "theories" to such a degree that the activist academics no longer even need to cite his works. Efforts to downplay Foucault's influence have already been made in CRT and gender studies because he was white and a cis guy. I'll continue to focus on the man's ideas since they're more relevant and less vulnerable than his reputation.

[@Mindstangle]

@@deathvalleydruids892 Citational justice is plagiarism. He does not have a single original idea that I can identify. His "work" rationalizes his own pathological angst via what, I assume, is as much nonsense in French as it is in English. I look forward to 30 years from now when the current generation of Kinsey Scale enthusiasts are as prevalent, correct and outspoken as the 'free love' crowd from the 60s is today. That is to say, completely gone, as rotted into nothingness by carcinogenic gonadotropins as their forebears were by heavy psychedelic abuse. Death is undeceivable. Be on the lookout for pro-incest and pro-pedophilia movement in the coming years. The terms pedophobia and incestphobia have recently started gaining popular use. "Crip queer incest" is an enlightening search.

[@IKnowNeonLights]

It is a very interesting subject, thought a human being, (what is power?!?!....) a lot, quite a lot. There is only one type of power, and it covers all the way from the biggest system, developed or in existence, to a very specific act, be this act as simple as a word or as a thought, at all possible levels and combinations. It is not dependent on something unique and separate, such as strength, violence, ability, numbers, or resources. Instead it makes use of all, anything, everything and anyone, in relation to the level it is applicable and whom or what it is applied to, by anyone. You can be the richest most connected person and at it's core structure you will make use of (power) in the same way as the poorest least connected person, at the exact level applied, and to whom or what it is being applied to. For reasons and carefully constructed logic (that need to be elaborate further), in most cases anyone applying it (the power) is not even aware of doing it, (consciously, especially). In fact, the whole process can, and has often been justified as explainable, understood, and reasoned cause and effect of the actual existence of anyone within any and all known systems, developed or in natural existence. It is very hard to give it a simple definition, although it seems to have one in some of the languages. In fact, as simple as a single word in most cases, varying from culture to culture, and almost always in relation to some type of a unwritten contract. (And it is the precise violation, of varying degrees of such a unwritten contract, on any possible applicable levels it relates to, in regards to whom and what, by anyone!!!!) That is power. The only power in existence. More simply stated!! Is the existence of anyone being in a position, recognising such a position in being (consciously or unconsciously),in order to apply, exert and posses control at the level applied, in relation to over whom, and what it is being applied, (of power, control of power). Take the example of when, anyone will state and act in response to such a statement! (That any human being, or groups of human beings, (however large they might be), pose a threat, a serious threat, an existential threat, to their culture or societal structure!!! And this always in relation to a human being, or a group of human beings, in position to have most or full control of systems such as education, health, economy, justice, policing and army of their culture and societal structure!!!! While simultaneously, the threat stated ( the human being/human beings), and acted upon with all the systems mentioned, as a threat, have none of them in possession, are, have or will be in a position to do so, let alone apply, exert and posses any control over such systems, meaning power. Take the example of antisemitism or racism. Although a human being, a group of human beings, might be rich and connected in various levels of a society!!!! Any society that holds the position, recognises that position (consciously or unconsciously) to apply, exert, and posses control over the whole of the society, through all of the systems available!!! Then! That human being, group of human beings, might look as in a position of power, but they are not. Historically recorded and proven so far. Take the example of the female side of the human beings and this structure that I am referring too, becomes even more tangled. At any given moment even an empress, let alone any possible female human being, can have this position, the recognition of this position (consciously or unconsciously) applied, exerted and possessed over them, as control, meaning power. This structure can be applicable in what is recognised as bulling, stalking, ridiculing, taking advantage off, profiteering, etc etc no matter the level or the human being/beings. Once in the position and the recognition of the position (consciously or unconsciously), of applying, exerting and possessing control, if and when acted, that is power in different levels. A even more tangled example!!! Take any human being, or group of human beings that possible levels of power, such as racism, antisemitism, and sexism/misogyny can be applied, exerted and possessed over them at any possible level, and will do exactly the same, as done to them, over another human being, or group of human beings!!! For quite often the same reasons and logic, such as race, religion, and sex (female/male), or because of a violation of a much larger radius of a cultural norm, such as a sexual preference!!! Which in turn, the very same human being, or group of human beings having power applied, exerted and possessed over them, will then do the same to others, under the same (conscious or unconscios) reason and logic. That of being in a position, and recognising the being in such a position, to apply exert or posses control at different levels, in relation to whom or what, and making it an act, a contact, as simple and as sophisticated as a thought, or the most elaborated system of thoughts and physical activity combinations. (There is more, but this is a short version that will do for now. But I will say instead!! If applying, exerting and possessing of any level of power does not make anyone think and feel, even the smallest sense of guilt (not as in the sense of a sinn, but as in the sense of it cannot be repeated again. (( Can be done similar yes, but not as the same act)))!!!! Then anyone cannot say, I believe in God. In fact, anyone cannot say I believe in anything, not even principles, (whatever principles are).

[@zchularoceribfjan]

Quite invocative - thank you.

[@ervinsavage392]

what about Michel Foucault on children?

[@CarlosAugustoScalassaraPrando]

🤔🤔🤔

[@Kittylover074]

PepeFace

[@CarlosAugustoScalassaraPrando]

@@Kittylover074 ???????????????

[@suurmestari7457]

The age of consent in France was 15 in 1977, but sodomy and similar "sexual relations against nature" were prohibited for people under the age of 18. It was this disparity in age between a child's being able to consent to heterosexual sexual relations and being able to consent to homosexual relations, which Foucault and other gay activists saw as discriminatory. Doesn't sound nearly as bad when you know the real context now, does it? Guy Sorman is a conservative pseudointellectual who has admitted to his claims having no factual basis.

[@Kingofstonerrock]

@@suurmestari7457ok groomer

[@languagegame410]

FOUCAULT!!!...

[@2009Artteacher]

He is in fact going to war with words thus projecting power .

[@suurmestari7457]

Isn't that what philosophy is about? Going to war with words

[@1ntrcnnctr608]

@@suurmestari7457 pls define „war“

[@suurmestari7457]

@@1ntrcnnctr608 no

[@2009Artteacher]

@@suurmestari7457 indeed .Though in analyzing his words you find power ( will .passion) as the application of the very thing he opposes . power ,( probably influenced by Nietzsche and homosexual repression .

[@TheNoblot]

Power is not in matter but on the elements that compose and control matter. Once particles you and yourself are in harmony matter follows and your mind dictates reality. Human power is concentrated in matter however not on the components of matter. Since those elements exist on a subatomic world the basis of the material world are the tools society manufactures. once art reaches anew plateau it ceases to be the art of the art market / the artist becomes the art market as his artwork. Economics politics industry education modern laws have the tendency of disregarding reality and adopting we know best because we run the economy politics education and the markets the result is history repeats itself with the simple detail that it accelerates itself with time to a point when it will overcome the mind of Governments markets laws republics nations ideologies & religions & the We know best of Davos “economical forum UN are finding themselves lost on a realm that they understand less and less as the reality evolves and realizing that the power they beloved & believed they had is as an illusion as the reality the 99%, believed in good & evil, right & wrong. A Socratic artistic world order becomes unavoidable the new dimension will put art, the art some art/ on the same level as science and philosophy technology and economics politics and kingdoms, the trinity of art /creation /perception / objective world/ becomes a fact when an artwork is on the canvas as it is on your real life your material practical existence takes a steep forward the dimensions of your materialistic mind begins to understand the subatomic realms as the subconscious realms of your & our universe: the good news it has already happen.😥🎶🎭🎨🍾🫖😉

[@Mindstangle]

"In an interview with the French public TV channel France 5 on March 5, Sorman confirmed that while visiting Foucault, he “witnessed what Foucault did with young children in Tunisia … ignoble things. The possibility of consent could not be sought. These were things of extreme moral ugliness.”"

[@Kingofstonerrock]

I agree with chomsky about this guy

[@richardwillford2418]

That he's a pedophile rapist?

[@Kingofstonerrock]

@@richardwillford2418 that he has very little to say thats worthwhile or hasn't been said already, the pedophilia shit is just another reason to ignore him

[@richardwillford2418]

@@Kingofstonerrock Couldn't agree more. I had to put up with Foucault and his cohorts all through University. Toxic garbage.

[@roblim1767]

Foucault is a disaster. Despite the development of some useful concepts, his legacy is one of the most harmful in philosophy. The shallow way in which he quotes Freud and Hegel to presuppose power as an action of repression(as the first analysis). Everything has poison, everything is biased, everything is basically a rationalization of the totally distorted life he lived. His whole philosophy is thought of as a diagnostic philosophy, so he can have a crooked revisitation of history, misquote philosophers,... and just twist it all around.

[@Khuno2]

What specifically do you think was distorted about the life that he lived?

[@roblim1767]

@@Khuno2 Practically everything? Flirt (or act itself) with pedophilia, problems with self-control of his instincts, 1977 petition, everything "bad" that existed in the underground gay scene of the time had the hand of Foucault at some point.

[@Khuno2]

​@@roblim1767 What was "bad" that existed in the underground gay scene of the time? Were you there to document it? How was Foucault responsible for it? They read a lot of theory in those milieus? The 1977 petition wanted to overturn a 1945 ordinance which established that age of consent for heterosexual relationships was 15, yet 21 for homosexual relationships. That was amended to 18, but remained a profoundly homophobic law that created a legal disparity in how straight and not straight people were treated. So are you a bigot who supports the 1945 French ordinance that was overturned in the early 1980s? Is your biggest complaint about Foucault just some garden variety homophobia? As to the pedophilia accusations, those are very serious charges that should be further investigated.

[@roblim1767]

@@Khuno2 The underground gay scene at that time was a much more marginalized scene, so much so that Foucault even fell in love with a drug dealer when he was younger (just as an illustration). It seems that you did not read the letter signed by Foucault, it is clearly claimed that there was valid consensus in the case of the two arrested for pedophilia (12 and 13 years old, both sexes). His question was about his personal life. My criticism is above all about his work. On his philosophical work it is even easier to criticize, the biased historical revisionism, the distortion of previous philosophy, the lack of analytical capacity, ... I don't think Guy Surman would put his name at risk: www.dailysabah.com/arts/guy-sorman-accuses-michel-foucault-of-abusing-boys-in-tunisia/news But I didn't accuse, I only doubted. But if you believe in someone like him, you may believe that people who traveled with Jeffrey Epstein are also very exemplary. There is no evidence against them...I allow myself to have a little common sense.

[@suurmestari7457]

@@roblim1767 Yeah, Guy Sorman publishes an article about Foucault r*ping kids at a cemetary in a Turkish nazi newspaper and you think he cares about his academic reputation more than tricking conservatives into ignorance about Foucault's work?

[@edmundburke9477]

The falsehoods of Foucault are worshipped and noisily proclaimed as immortal wisdom by mercenary followers of him.

[@subjectt.change6599]

Hey kids! You ever wonder what happens to a nation’s philosophy after being the near two-time World War runner-up? Ask ol’ Michel here…

[@richardwillford2418]

No, kids shouldn't get too close to Foucault.

[@djl8710]

Less on Foucault please

[@subjectt.change6599]

Foucault is proof that anyone can be an edge-lord if they just disregard the evidence of their senses.

[@suurmestari7457]

Foucault is the most cited scholar in the humanities. If that's what an "edge-lord" means, I guess I'll have to start being a bit edgy too. Perhaps that's the heart of progress?

[@suurmestari7457]

@@MrLcowles You really need to stop watching Jordan Peterson talks.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@@suurmestari7457 Progress implies a direction and a goal. I doubt you’ll find much teleology in Foucault. Or are you only defending him because those academics who cited him told you to?

[@suurmestari7457]

@@subjectt.change6599 I'm defending Foucault because he's hot and I'm kinda pan. But I don't get what you're referring to. The goals of Foucault's research are quite clear.

[@subjectt.change6599]

@@suurmestari7457 Actually, I don’t really want to argue with you, because I respect your reasons. He is kinda cute, but Peirce was hotter.