Michel Foucault's "My Body, This Paper, This Fire"

[@whereisawesomeness]

Regarding the accuracy of Descartes’ depiction of madness, there are two footnotes I’d make. Firstly, Descartes is to some degree correct to portray the madman as incapable of doubt, since in most cases of delusions the individual cannot be reasoned out of their delusion (there are of course exceptions; for instance, delusions associated with schizotypal personality disorder sometimes occur alongside with an awareness that the beliefs are delusional). Secondly, dreams are less distinct from madness than Descartes thinks. The hallucinations I’m familiar with, both through personal experience of psychosis and discussions with people I’ve met in the local psych ward, are extremely similar to dreams; if anything, dreams are usually more bizarre. My hallucinations are usually along the lines of people touching me, shadowy figures following me, man-sized spiders, bugs crawling over me, and so on. We’ve all had dreams that are far further from reality than that.

[@Firmus777]

Interesting choice of text to cover. Thank you for introducing me to it. Has it ever been published on its own? BTW, why do you pronounce Descartes as Descaltes?

[@kaidenkondo5997]

Hi David I ask that you cover Derrida's last text on the debate, "To Do Justice to Freud": The History of Madness in the Age of Psychoanalysis! I found it an interesting text and shows that My Body, This Paper, This Fire was not the last text of the debate. it was also confusing so I would like a knowledgeable person's opinion. Please, David!

[@theelderskatesman4417]

Couldn't we say that Descartes has to exclude madness - by refusing to doubt 'this body' etc , - precisely because he is a little crazy himself?

[@Marcin_Pawlik]

Thank you for covering both works. I felt like I was going insane listening to the Derrida part of this, and now I am reasonable again lol Also, very interesting about two french words for power. Does Foulcault use both words through his works depending on what he is talking about? If so, that sounds like something important to take into consideration when reahing him. (I am finishing my chronological all Nietzsche marathon and getting started with Foulcault).

[@eltigremanda]

I felt the same way of feeling insane listening to derida! nice to see someone else felt that way

[@leodarkk]

Well I never read Foulcault, but I will assume that he mostly uses "pouvoir". To maybe give a better explanation between "pouvoir" and "puissance", "pouvoir" is mostly the power than you have on others, while "puissance" is the power in itself. You will say "Le pouvoir du gouvernement" (government power), as the power of the government is related to others being. But for an electric power, it is going to be "puissance électrique". As electricity does not use its power to control other beings. Nietzsche "Will to power " is translated in french as "Volonté de puissance " as he does not only talk about the will to dominate others. I don't know how it is in german, and if there is such a distinction.

[@Marcin_Pawlik]

@@leodarkk Thank you. That makes a lot of sense in the context of will to power and how Deleuze talks about it.

[@kaidenkondo5997]

I would first say that I have very little knowledge of Derrida and Foucault, having touched on 5 Derrida essays/lectures and only Michel Foucault's The Subject and Power so my strength of both is limited and subject to change. That being said, I believe in this debate Derrida was far stronger since he didn't define reason/unreason on a mere binary. Derrida also draws upon Heideggerian terms of absence and presence far more, while Foucault is too Nietzschean for me, although Derrida still uses Nietzschean methods as well.

[@Zing_art]

Very interesting! Thanks. Does F intend to say that even ‘madness’ that we know it as , is governed by some dominant power structures ?

[@soumipaik]

Yes, that’s the whole point. Knowledge is discursive. Even though according to Foucault ‘pure-discourse’ works through free play but quite disappointingly we haven’t yet achieved that sort of free play of knowledge in our practical life and society, in most of the cases. You can also understand this discursive knowledge from the point of view of the ideological state apparatuses as posited by Althusser. Thus, one should always keep on questioning the definitions of everything (here, what is madness though and is that definition true). Because, Foucault states that there’s no truth but only will to truth that exists. Now, usually this will has been controlled by the dominant power structures.

[@Zing_art]

@@soumipaik thank you for elaborating

[@soumipaik]

@@Zing_art you’re most welcome

[@kaidenkondo5997]

@@soumipaik Derrida would criticize saying ideas of madness are conceived of by 'dominant power structures' as this seems too ontotheological or logocentric, saying it all relates to an external point of reality.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora-v8k]

Postmodernists always have the coolest essay/book titles.

[@kaidenkondo5997]

David thanks for this video, it has given me a lot to Meditate (haha, get it!) on. In the end, Foucault attempts to speak on behalf of the silenced, which is contradictory, so while he raises good criticisms of Derrida, he also seems to be repudiating psychology and psychiatry as a whole. This is an all too easy sleight of hand in my opinion.

[@Raistlin7070]

Derrida's thought is perhaps more internally consistent yet less convincing because of the inherent flaw in postmodern theory (which Foucult escapes by being less rigid). In the former, the tools to escape ones frame of reference/set of given binary values must be denied, for if they existed the entire theory falls apart.. which is why he only vaguely suggests that the only way to overcome the given reference binary is to follow the madman down his path.. Foucult recognizing the unfruitful nature of this brand of Theory, assumes that if the nonstandard speech is allowed room, at some point the two reference points may benefit through a kind of cross talk. Derrida is more static while Foucult is dynamic.

[@malichelete_ls]

I reconcile both Foucault and Derrida very successfully.

[@kaidenkondo5997]

foucault shows he is still too structuralist here.