What is Power? | Michel Foucault

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Love the channel? Love supporting things? Check out the Patreon page: 💸 Patreon: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy ⌛ Timestamps: 0:00 Introduction 0:59 Empirical vs Theoretical 1:57 What Power Isn't 3:32 What is Power? 4:12 Traits of Power: Immanence 5:04 Traits of Power: Intentional and Non-Subjective 6:19 Traits of Power: Resistance 7:35 Force Relations 9:23 Dynamism of Force Relations 11:52 The Alliance of Force Relations

[@ivankomadanvonrakovac8415]

Can I ask about your religious views. What religion do you follow?

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@ivankomadanvonrakovac8415 You can ask but I'm afraid I don't have a particularly short answer to offer. I guess it is simple since I don't follow any religion but as for my views about the transcendental and the metaphysical it's really not easy to answer. I don't know I guess would be the easiest way to put it

[@bessithor1571]

I love supporting things, big supporting fan

[@matgonzalez6272]

the joy on your face in exploring connections in Jung and Foucault is gold. I love how much this interests you, because it's exactly the sort of thing that brought me here. That underlying feeling of interconnection within different schools of thought feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video. Looking forward to you exploring Jung/Foucault. It'll be awesome to see how someone who was so driven to concrete explanations like Foucault will mesh with someone like Jung who tried to realate/sciencify (not sure of the word to use there) mysticism and spirituality.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha yeah I got very excited there. That's the real nectar for me - the cross-pollination between great systems of thought that usually aren't cross-pollinated. It's very exciting to see what new combinations of insight they can bring together. I'm delighted to have found people who share that joy in exploring these thoughts

[@aWomanFreed]

Foucault copies and twists jung to his purpose….how are u impressed by that?

[@leboyaunt]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy yes! ill wait for the jungian video approach

[@mrinalsisodia7780]

Waiting for that video!

[@jamesbowker3846]

Have you seen much of John Vervaeke's Awakening from the Meaning Crisis? I'd be interested in your thoughts relating to his attempt to bring together realms of cognitive science, as I think one area he could explore further is the impact on power politics

[@JDG-hq8gy]

Notes - Our “free” decisions are influenced by thousands of societal factors. - These factors are forces that can counteract or supplement each other - These forces can cluster together to form institutions - Social relations often function autonomously and bottom-up - Social power isn’t always wield by a specific state, class, organisation, leader etc. who make deliberate decisions to subordinate others, they’re often emergently complex, organic and unintentional. - Although events are comprised of deliberate decisions that constitute or influence it, no one person makes all those decisions and has the knowledge that those decisions will be made so no one person controls nor knows what will happen in the future

[@mikexhotmail]

@@alwaysgreatusa223 Indeed. ps. Which really interesting why Foucault is the only one who seem to take full credit on this subject.

[@skuzzlebutt]

@@alwaysgreatusa223Why are you taking the first point here and acting like that is the extent of the theory? seems a little dishonest

[@dianazaharieva5293]

The fact that it was HERMETICISM and Gnosticism, that was integrated within w. Tradition of all encompassing ideologies' fusion.

[@dianazaharieva5293]

The fact that it was HERMETICISM and Gnosticism, that was integrated within w. Tradition of all encompassing ideologies' fusion.

[@bramdejong3157]

Yes! I've always felt that the idea that power is purely top-down is not quite right. Taken to its logical extreme it inevitably leads to paranoid ideas that our lives are entirely controlled by the whims of a few powerful people (insert your favourite conspiracy theory here). I've always felt that in reality it is a much more complex dynamic system which cannot be controlled by any individual, but I have never been able to put it into words. It seems Foucault did exactly that, this video inspires me to dive into his work. Thanks again for the fantastic content, best channel on youtube.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Exactly Bram! It's a way of approaching power without descending into disempowered conspiracy theorising. Thanks for the kind words and glad the video inspired something in you!

[@seanwooten6410]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I find Foucault the man to be distasteful, at best. (Honestly, that is the kindest I can be about him as a person.) But I am aware that it would be fallacious to say that his message should be discounted because of that. Even to me, some of what he said fits and is true. Still, I have to wonder how much of what he says comes from who he is.

[@harshkumar2473]

Isn't it being controlled?... Chomsky and zizek who are like to poles of left wing .. came to same ground on this however it was not power it was the idea of "manufacturing consent"

[@angelozachos8777]

@Bram de Jong POWER is always TOP-DOWN . You’re confused about the huge number of USEFUL IDIOTS at the bottom , who will insist on doing the bidding of the Power-Structure

[@asutoshmishra2278]

I like that u put the video in chapters. It really helps not just for understanding the concept but also for writing academic answers.

[@syourke3]

Just because you’re misunderstood doesn’t mean you’re great.

[@5aturnia]

I think you misunderstood the point.

[@pierreourly5108]

Great point

[@BipolarBear-tc5oe]

Foucault considered himself a misunderstood genius

[@sgt7]

​@@BipolarBear-tc5oethat's a misunderstanding of Foucault.

[@BipolarBear-tc5oe]

@@sgt7 It's not

[@meanagh]

I have an interest in politics which led me to revisit what I leaned over 60 years since I was a child. I love this series.

[@henrikibsen6258]

I don't know why but I was so taken aback when you with your gorgeous locks entered the frame. Rock on.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha beyond the power of the locks 😆

[@samanthaguthridge5516]

Really loved the video, and your passion for the subject is apparent. I first discovered Foucault myself, and found him fascinating, because he is great at approaching things from a nearly "neutral" point of view. He avoids putting things into boxes of "good" or "bad", and focuses more on exploring and explaining the mechanisms, which feels more complete and honest to me. Learning about his philosophy surrounding power really helped answer a lot of "why" questions that I had about how the world, society, and culture functions the way it does.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Samantha and I totally agree he's someone that was trying to go beyond good and evil and it's something he got a lot of flack for on the Left - not giving clear enough prescriptions and condemnations in his work but instead merely unearthing, reporting and investigating

[@nicholasjopson7326]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy such as his penchant for teen boys, why judge that as "good" or "bad" its just a mincing boy hungry bald dandy participating in an act. And he died of aids? What a surprise

[@orlandomontfort5101]

Did you know he was a pedophile?

[@dericksmith909]

What literature is best to understand Foucault

[@OlivesTwistedBranch]

You're a wonderful communicator. Thank You 💜

[@thecompetitionistparty8991]

Power is the ability to effect change. The competition for power comes the fact that we are all different and we all want different changes

[@financialarchitectureinsti3869]

Interconnection within different philosophy feels like uncovering ancient knowledge. I love it. Thanks for another great video.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

My pleasure!

[@louiselaw3184]

Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Louise!

[@emka198]

Thank you for how you teach, I understand Focoult more

[@SeekersofUnity]

Wonderful work. Lucid and arresting.

[@astrocosmos2]

From the first minute of your perfect analysis I had Jung in my mind. When in the 14th minute of your video you said about the relativity of theories between Foucault and Jung made my dopamine release like a rocket. I feel so lucky and honored to find you in utube❤❤❤❤❤

[@beckmartin1033]

This theory is central to my coursework and it has been confusing me so much. This video is so good, it has alleviated so much of my stress. The analogies were so good.

[@lukagoalvic4084]

the examples and analogies that you use are so helpful to understand the bigger theories

[@louhymlabe2734]

Real. I was lost on some concepts till he explained it with a boy preparing for school and I was like, "Woah, and there are people who hate Foucault, I think that's a cool way of seeing power".

[@sameersawdekar3293]

Wow! What an explanation on Foucault? Hardly heard about this philosopher, but will surely read his work. Thanks a lot for introducing me to Foucault

[@5crassrocker]

be prepared for pedophilia

[@tear728]

He was a child rapist lol you probably want his thoughts floating around in your head

[@diegorosso9401]

You live in Mars maybe.

[@LinNil-gz3je]

​@@diegorosso9401he's from India 😅

[@oswaldphills]

I learned something here. Foucault has been on my bookshelf for a while. Now you've given me a doorway into that writer. Unexpected. Cool. Peace.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Delighted to hear it Oswald!

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

Foucault with Deleuze for me are two exceptional modern investigators of the psyche. When I disagree with something they wrote I realise it's a boundary of for ignorance, only to find an opening into another maze. Thinking sight isn't the same as inner sight and society is completely blind.

[@jaylinn416]

I think this is called obscurantism.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@jaylinn416 Friedrich Nietzsche said: "The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence."

[@jaylinn416]

@@the_famous_reply_guy Well, if Foucault teaching helps you to lead a better life, there may be some value in it. I remain very skeptical. I would not waste my time trying to understand what he is talking about. I am not sure that even the living philosophy guy can explain.

[@the_famous_reply_guy]

@@jaylinn416 the debated with Chomsky was the moment I saw Foucault desire to explore all dimensions where Chomsky was fixed in all his linear philosophical positions. Foucault asked difficult questions of himself and gave interesting replies at the least, who amongst us can say this sincerely.

[@gabrielevadilonga7025]

@@the_famous_reply_guy I can agree on the incessant need of insight that Focault and his philosophical theories seem to give off, but, at the same time, I do not understand how one could consider them anything rather than mere poetry. A description of the world which is unverifiable is, to me, nothing more than a narration. Those theories hold no predictive power, they seek some kind of insight over phenomena, and try to give us some "sensation" about the world, but this is all mystical, artistic. In truth, nothing which he says can be considered "true". By studying such matters, I believe, you condition yourself to have a more articulated, complex viewpoint: but, still, it can't be verified.

[@ChrisPryor-n6m]

Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation.. Concise, clear and stimulating. Great presentation..

[@Artisticchaos]

Damn bro your voice narration is so soothing, absolutely perfect for narrating philosophy

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you so much that's so nice to hear (I hear plenty to the contrary so it's always nice to hear some positive ones!)

[@michaeldurfey536]

The analogies in your teaching are great!

[@jtthoma5]

I have really never understood Foucault until now, thanks!

[@jobbimaster]

Thanks for the video, and congratulations on reaching 30k! May the power of love overcome the love of power.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Ah thanks a million! Just crossed the line this morning it's exciting times!

[@motownmoneygang]

I feel like many people want to believe they are powerless because it takes away responsibility. I assume this belief is being subconsciously promoted by well established people. Because if other people can't do what they do, come as far as they came, it means they themselves are very special and talented and hardworking or whatever they want to believe themselves to be. It would make sense if people in positions high up a hierarchy aren't eager to promote the idea that actual power is formed by the opinions and choices of anyone anywhere on that hierarchy... the poorest 50% of people collectively considered money valueless... the power yielded over them would dissappear like snow before sun... Thanks for another great video :)

[@Johnconno]

What is power? Foucault should know, he 'applied' it for most of his life.

[@MrPoposiado]

your videos are such a blessing

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Jorge that's a joy to hear

[@matthewwalsh974]

Foucault is bang on.

[@jayanti2371]

As an american only now discovering that her democracy is in fact an oligarchy, i'd like to know if Foucault ever positied how his theory of power might be used practically. (I'm a first time viewer and new subscriber, btw.) Thank you for this great content.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Hello Jayanti and a very good question. It's something that Foucault gets a lot of hassle for since most of his work is descriptive rather than prescriptive (he was a reader of Wittgenstein so I wonder whether that might have been some element of influence in that). But his 1980s work takes a turn towards the care of the self and this is very much a practical application grounded in ancient philosophy and so will definitely be a theme we'll be returning to in future

[@jayanti2371]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I will greately appreciate any of your content on this topic -- theories of power, systems, change. It honestly never occurred to me (until watching your video) to try to conceptualize power itself in "new" and fresh ways -- and to stop letting the powerful themselves to dictate to us where the levers of power are. If we are going to dismantle the entrenched structures at the heart of everything from homelessness to endless war to environmental collapse -- we will have to dismantle our own utterly useless worldview, first and foremost. Thanks again.

[@AarmOZ84]

Amazing how different things look from a bottom up perspective.

[@denniscash4072]

Thank you for another wonderful video. The panopticon is everywhere and most are largely unaware. Again, thank you for what you do.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Dennis!

[@ChronicCruz]

Please don’t forget to give a detail video on a the sorcerer’s explanation of power, how one must learn to “see” the invisible threshold of power to understand the totality of ourselves

[@HeloIV]

Great video, you splendidly and succintly presented Foucault's theory of power. I'd like to suggest Bertrand De Jouvenel's "On Power", he focuses more on institutions but it is a masterpiece in the study of power, its genealogy and evolution

[@zootsoot2006]

People with too much focus on power usually suffer from a severe lack of it. A bit like the 'lady' who's focused on projecting an image of chastity.

[@douglaswright2143]

It seems perplexing that he defines social actions in terms of power and control, rather than of socialisation.

[@lustrousparadox]

Great video. definitely will help for my midterm !

[@bretttheroux8040]

I’d be interested in your thoughts on camille paglia’s critiques of Foucault

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

I'd be curious to read them. I enjoyed her talk with Peterson when it came out back in the day

[@gavinrose1058]

For a long time I've seen life as an interconnected web of centers of power - physical, vital, personal, social, legal, political, cultural, natural and even planetary and universal. Every stone thrown ripples in a nearly infinite number of ponds.

[@enlightenedanalysis]

Excellent video on Foucault. Thank you for this.

[@andresdubon2608]

I ignore how sofisticated the theory actually is, but it feels like talking about power as we talk about clasical conceptions of partículas in physics. Imagine when modern physical analogies were to be understood by most academics... I have always wondered how different disciplines interact with each other. Ps: I didn't watch the entire video and didn't realize that the analogy was in the video, jeje.

[@realdarkoarts4696]

Very much looking forward to the Jungian take on this. I'm currently reading Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas, where he makes a really interesting case for astrology as a kind of giant synchronistic map of the archetypical forces shaping global human experience at any given time. Seems like it could have a lot of overlap with the Foucault/ Jung exploration of the Gods.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Great recommendation thank you!

[@TimBitten]

The way the Internet allows certain opinions, phrases, and ways of framing issues to go viral is one of the most interesting things about this dynamic. I have often wondered if it will eventually result in the emergence of a globally agreed-upon set of norms and values, once power has had sufficient time to equalize more broadly.

[@brendanbell5326]

It depends on how the algorithms are written

[@oduogimaurice974]

'Power relations are everywhere; We are all serving power.'

[@jaysingh05]

Great stuff! I’ve struggled w a few of Foucault’s books but find his writing style a HUGE challenge. Some of his contemporaries are often easier to understand I feel like. But this helped a LOT.

[@johnluke37]

Fascinating analysis of a distillation of power. it feels like he is saying we are free agents but are driven by elements that are not free) (bound in a manner) to offer self-freedom. The joining together and dissolution of power, in this analysis feels like fractals of chaos that collect or are in the end an apparent, unexamined movement into a decision. Did he believe that power was in essence outside of human conscious action?

[@ChronicCruz]

Thank you KZbin for bringing me here

[@asaiira]

Can you do seperate videos on the empiricists? locke, hume, Berkeley.

[@finpro942]

6:36 "Where there is power there is resistance and resistance is never in the position of exteriority in relation to power" also according to foucault resistance is internal to power. (1)Does that mean to stay in power, resistance is important?and resistance only makes Power grow instead of weakening it,as in "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger"? (2)Can those in power grow more powerful by creating (faking)resistance on purpose? I don't know if I constructed those questions accurately since English is not my first language.Looking forward to the next video.

[@MrStevemur]

I wonder also what Foucault’s position would be. In response to your second point, it certainly seems in everyday life as though systems of power construct formal opposition to themselves as a way of channeling resistance into manageable forms. The opposition political party performs the valuable function of keeping most resistance within the political system where it can be contained.

[@finpro942]

@@MrStevemur Thankyou for the response.Yes,and I wonder if we are seeing the same with modern day activism as well;If the Activism is Corporate sponsored,and controlled and contained ,doesn't that make the corporations more powerful?In short,power exists with those who have the power to corrupt.

[@MrStevemur]

​@@finpro942sometimes I'm sure that does happen. We even have a word for it, "astroturfing," meaning something which looks like a "grass roots" movement but which is actually fake. Personally though, I try to assume good faith on the part of activist groups, unless there's a compelling reason not to. The danger of being immobilised by suspicion seems greater to me than the danger of being deceived.

[@finpro942]

@@MrStevemur I never knew there was a word for it!Astroturfing is definitely bad.I think the only way to figure it out is by observing whether the Activists actions match with their words consistently regardless of circumstances.But why should Suspicion be the reason to be immobilised,rather it should make one more mobile in pursuit of truth without fear.?

[@Patrick-sheen]

I’m a complete amateur but the idea of force relations really reminds me of the Hegel dialectic. Is there any connection? The constant thesis, antithesis, synthesis idea. I’ll refer to the four quadrants video to try and position myself here. These videos are awesome, amazing work man.

[@palmtemple]

I found the video leaning more to social power and social constructs that either advance or inhibit the extent of power. I think the element of personal power beyond social constructs, and how that is a subject worth a deeper look . As an example finding power by limiting the way society creates conformity in an individual and how that offers a freedom to operate in the world without being bound by traditional lore.

[@korpiz]

Power doesn’t corrupt, obsession with power corrupts both those with power and those without power.

[@richard01690]

You are a very sofisicated thinker and a joy to listen to. It's a treat to hear your work in an accent the same as my own. Brilliant densely packed videos. 👏

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks for the kind words Richard it means a lot

[@KalebPeters99]

Really fantastic stuff, James. Thank you for all your effort. I'm super keen to explore the quadrants with you and look forward to future videos 🙏✨

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Kaleb!

[@seanwooten6410]

Foucault's multiplicity of force relations is fascinating and worth consideration. But the idea that there is no power without resistance, or that the concept of freedom is inconceivable without the lack thereof, is obvious, in my view. Foucault's explanation of it reminds me of Pavlov's dogs experiment, which proved that dogs could tell they were going to get fed, even if there was not food set in front of their noses (because of the sound of their keeper's footsteps); something any farmer or pet owner knew before and after Pavlov's experiment but was heralded as some great breakthrough for science.

[@seanwooten6410]

PS It's great when the intelligentsia finally catches up with the common folk.

[@megadan66]

Thank you Love your analysis.....It gives me a better understanding of modern philosophy!!!!

[@DivoGo]

I’m new to Foucault. And I completely understand this episode. QUESTION. Why does Jordan Peterson demonize Foucault so vigorously? Would love your thoughts. And as always keep up the good work!🌻🌼💐👍🏾✌🏾❤️

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Delighted you enjoyed it! I actually explored this exact topic in the video on JP's shadow where I focus particularly on his handling of Foucault so you might find that interesting if you really want an in-depth exploration of that question (link here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aZynoXiBgpyNeKs)

[@noah5291]

yes more Foucault please

[@Fluksnumberone]

Hello there, many thanks for this very nice overview of Foucault's concept of power. It was really liberating for me since I have always been confronted by Jordan Peterson's negative (to put it mildly) view of Foucault's work (thanks also for the video about Jordan's Jungian shadow ;) ). On another note, I see a striking similarity in Foucault's multiplicity bottom-up concept of power with the scientific theory of self-organization. There are numerous concepts that are associated with it: emergence, feedback effect, non-linearity, micro-macro interactions, chaos, etc. If I am not mistaken, these theories were developed in various fields of science (chemistry, physics, informatics, but also in social sciences) during the mid-century, at the same time post-modernist philosophers were at work. Looking at the Wikipedia page of one of the pioneers in the field of self-organization theories (Ilya Prigogine), I found that his work has influenced Gilles Deleuze! I wonder if Foucault was also influenced by the rising of these new scientific theories during his time. I am always fascinated by the connection between "hard" sciences and philosophy, and how they have been influencing each other.

[@JamesTheLiberated]

Thank you for this video :)

[@bigmukka]

Clear, succinct and VERY useful. Thank you

[@todoido13]

Gave the video a like mostly because of the last idea of making a video about the connection between Focault and Jung. I really look foward for that!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you! I look forward to making it!

[@70rn]

You're absolutely correct re-KMS; Fu-Gee-La is demonstrably the very essence of The Will To Party.

[@myrawells5691]

Yeah! Thank you have subscribed wonderful work

[@joaovfm]

while you were telling about the external pressure for decision making I really start feeling that it is mathematically possible to model it, and perhaps it is quite similar to what Facebook and digital marketing does, quite interesting

[@foolishpoet1919]

Awesome stuff as usual! Thanks for making such great content! Have you ever looked into American pragmatism? Thinkers like John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, and especially William James seem right up your alley.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Anders! I did a bit of delving into Peirce during the Semiotics study of Saussure but never went too deep. William James however is someone that I've been wanting to read for well over a decade now. I really think he'll be a big one for me. Seems to have a similar portfolio of interesting and yet I know so little about him

[@king676uutttgt]

[@wrsouth]

Foucault's work is a good example of why philosophy needs to more fully embrace science in order to make substantive progress. Your example of choosing what to wear to school is a perfect case in point. Foucault points to hidden power structures that ultimately lie with the State and other institutions (parents, culture, etc.) and these are "force relations," and they affect each other as well as the individual. What modern biology will tell you is that in that same instance, deciding what to wear to school, myriad factors are in play--the sensual nature of the environment (is it cold, dark? a bleak early Monday morning light in a musty bedroom?); did the student have breakfast? (running late, no time); what are the individual's hormone levels; what happened five minutes before the choice; a day before the choice; a year before; what is the individual's genetic makeup (and, what of the parents); what happened to this individual in the third trimester of pregnancy; what characterizes the individual's culture (is it a violent one, like America's?); what was the make-up of the individual's grandparents, and back to the beginning of the species. There are innumerable prior causes that impinge on every "decision" we make, obviating any possibility of agency. Foucault, while clearly a smart guy, cast a tight net around power as the Prime Mover. It's not. Neither is it measurable, that's simply false (measure it in what? pounds? meters? what?). Neither is it quantifiable. If we, the lovers of ideas, work to include what is actually measurable (and verifiable, and replicable), we may legitimately set aside the more romantic missteps of folks like Foucault, and carry forward the more workable aspects (there are forces acting on us that we are not conscious of; indeed, most cognition is unknown to us---look inside, all you see are neurons firing, and they tell a fascinating, but limited, for now, story). The macro realm is not culture, it is life, and life is biological. We need not give up philosophical maneuvers to gain greater insights, but we do ourselves a disservice by not incorporating the radical advances happening in other fields. Foucault's theory of power is fascinating mainly in that he intuited a lot more was going on behind the scenes in the shaping of so-called choices, but his focus on the State and its discontents is a typical heir to Marxism, however removed.

[@art-ificialblon-die7013]

What you are referring to is a mixture of decision theory, chaos theory and causal determinism. Laplace’s demon or what not. However, your hormone levels, what you ate for breakfast, the weather affecting the mood, your genetic makeup, etc don’t necessarily contribute to the perception/sensemaking of everyday. They are mere nudges, to borrow a term from behavioural economics. Sensing one sort of stimuli will make one prefer to wear a different clothe, but wouldn’t you think that the prioritisation of wearing clothes based on comfort rather than fashion is more than just organisms responding to physical changes? We are beings whose world is defined through cognition, so the realm of ideas certainly play a bigger role than you give it credit. I may get black out drunk one day, but how I respond depends on which time period I live and my environment broadly. And within the background of this environment, all the biological factors create potentialities of outcome, and yet, it will be the cultural factors that create the most prominent paradigm of influences, such as between being a greek drunk at a dionysian festival or a christian during the reformation. I agree that philosophers should incorporate better understanding of science, however, what you suggested is what I take issue with. Yes, there are an infinitely limitless factor that potentially affects one’s decision. Factors that’s outside of our control. After all, we are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. So, following this lane of thought leads almost to nowhere, but the truisms regarding human limitations and epistemological uncertainty. P.s. marxism isn’t the only framework that is critical of the state. Even between the left and the right outside of marxist thought, the state is criticised. Heck, you can clearly see how foucault departs from marxist form of analysis.

[@wrsouth]

@@art-ificialblon-die7013 On the biology of free will (or, the lack of, you might enjoy Robert Sapolsky's "Behave." It's thick, but breezily written and he provides an exhaustive (for the layman) overview of genes, hormones, sensual environment, and why all of that matters completely, and collectively overrides the notion of choice. He has a new book coming out, the title is something like "Determined: The Science of Life Without Free Will." There are more of us all the time (which sounds like a line from a creepy movie) that accept the total lack of free will, which is a pretty tough pill to swallow. That said, my thinking is coming straight out of biology.

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

@@wrsouth so, yeah. I guess I just straight up disagree with you Ted. I do believe it’s more than just biology and can suggest countless texts as well that would counter the ones you present. That’s not what this discussion or channel is about. It’s almost like you’re saying your religion is the correct one and all the others are false gods. While this may be true for you this is hardly how you foster the discussion and sharing of ideas. I always think of this channel as the meeting of the minds not the controlling of others’.

[@wrsouth]

@@OneConsciousnessWithAaron Thanks for your note. When you have a moment, send me a link to the guidelines for "what this channel is about." If those guidelines include freely expressing your thoughts, I'll most likely continue to do that. (PS: you can't possibly suggest countless texts, or any, to counter a book that isn't even published yet: Determined.)

[@OneConsciousnessWithAaron]

@@wrsouth I think you purposely misinterpreted my meaning and intention. But thanks for the Rorschach. Happy to refrain from any further comments on your posts. But do, and I mean this sincerely, feel free to comment on mine. Thanks

[@justinludeman8424]

I'm so glad the algorithm delivered me you! 🙏🏼❤️ Fortuitously, or perhaps the heuristic algorithms do work 😅, you came along and dissect and analyse in precisely the way I didnt know I needed until hearing you. An open mind coupled with erudite humility - golden. Thanks mate 🙏🏼🇦🇺🖖🏼

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

This brought a smile to my face Justin so thank you!

[@justinludeman8424]

@@TheLivingPhilosophy mate, and so you have bought a smile to mine. I'm a biochemist/structural biologist and busy jazz/classical guitarist. I wish I had more time to read and learn further. So when I get the opportunity to digest the gift of great thinking and concise synopsis I'll eat it 🤣

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

@@justinludeman8424 Well now that's an interesting combo! I'd love to a better classical guitarist (never mind jazz) practice practice practice I guess. Anyway I'm happy to throw some extra ingredients in the the mixing pot of your psyche!

[@considrew]

I love how your channel has grown, congrats, I know it's a lot of work. I'm interested to see if you also dive into discussing the overlap between this theory and that of Dawkin's memetics theory from The Selfish Gene.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Drew! The Selfish Gene is very high on the reading list and there's a lot to tie it in with so hopefully we'll get to it in the next few months I suspect it'll be one of those cornerstone ideas

[@timadamson3378]

I think many of these social phenomena can be explained in more detail by Rene Girard's theory of mimesis and mimetic rivalry. Why do we care so deeply about what others think, for example. The existence of social expectations does not explain why we pay so much attention to them. Girard helps here.

[@JuanPerez-od4pq]

Thanks so much.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

You're welcome!

[@jerryjones7293]

Fascinating stream of thought.

[@TheJacklwilliams]

Great presentation. Big thanks to the YT Algo for sending you my way. Got my sub. Thanks for the great work!

[@enlightenedanalysis]

Thanks for this video.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Oh wow thank you for your generosity 🙏

[@phineasrumson3116]

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"....knowledge is bottled by those who have the means to allow or deny its dissemination. Foucault loved to talk in riddles, take from it what you will!

[@alish4498]

please continue your videos. I find you very good at explaining philosophy

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Ali!!

[@MiguelDomingos1979]

thank you, very insightful.

[@LilVukie]

Playing “Killing Me Softly” by the Fugees is the best use of power

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Based power

[@Sagiarias]

A fascinating discourse - one can also liken the idea of force relations to the function of the superego in psychology. This is building on top of Freud's interpretation of the superego with Anna Freud, Jung, Rank and Reich.

[@antoineriwalski4074]

Beautyfull, really Beautyful. That offert such a great view of the power and offert à far more coherent power definition with some historical events. Thank you

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks a million Antoine!

[@johnhatchel9681]

He certainly loved the power dynamic between men and little boys.

[@jonsegerros]

Leftists/postmodernists don't wanna talk about this

[@Divide_et_lmpera]

@@jonsegerrosSeveral leftists signed petition in France to remove the age of consent. Among them not only Foucault but also prominent feminist Simone de Beauvoir and her simp Jean Paul Sartre.

[@LealisL]

Awesome, thank you!

[@ReverseThread]

Hi mates! In my experience, it seems as though the less power individuals have over their own existence in the modern era, they intrinsically feel the need to instill their own ideals or beliefs of power upon others (which they were more than likely brought up or raised with, and thus truely think they are doing the right thing etc). 🤔 Incredible, thought provoking content as usual bro. nicely done! You deserve far more subscriptions in my opinion! This content is gold 👍

[@viperrr6886]

Very interesting

[@zarearakelyan1539]

Can you please make a video comparing Nietzsche’s and Foucault’s views on power? You said that unlike Nietzsche Foucault doesn’t make a metaphysical conception of power, which I don’t fully understand. Would love some clarification on that, thanks!

[@uperdown0]

Oh it's just that Nietzsche is explicitly metaphysical when he discusses the "Will to Power" (deriving his system directly from Schopenhauer and Indian philosophy), whereas Foucault tries to apply those basic metaphysical notions in a scientific critique--sort of like how many Physicists still think in terms of Platonic forms, even though modern Physics itself is far more rigorous and empirical,

[@zarearakelyan1539]

@@uperdown0 That makes more sense, thanks. Would you say that Nietzsche described power as a system and Foucault regarded it more as a force?

[@uperdown0]

@@zarearakelyan1539 moreso the other way around. For Nietzche, power just "is", it's just the way things are, and it's different forms modulate in history. Foucault basically transforms this kind of "genealogy" into a more rigorous, historical critique, since (at least in his early and middle periods) he's still a Marxist materialist. See Nietzche's "Genealogy of Morals", esp. the second essay, and cf. Discipline and Punish, which is widely regarded as an expansion.

[@Dantes_kiddo]

I can finally explain to my roommates why I take so long to pick out an outfit

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

And ain't that what philosophy is all about!

[@LokiBeckonswow]

great video dude, thx so much, any video on jung is great and I'm sure foucault thrown in there would be uber spicy, nice

[@shakir-ulhassan3133]

Thanks, it really helped a lot....

[@megadan66]

Multiplicity is a cop out for true detail

[@jacquesdemolay2699]

Power is the harnessing on energy.

[@jochenrammer1527]

Verry nice.

[@athen33]

wow, gave me an excuse to re watch the matrix. great video, thank you ‼️

[@victorzaak]

This video is very good

[@austinthornton3407]

The problem with Foucault is that it seems to follow from his analysis of power that power and truth are coterminous. The journey of the individual in pursuit of truth is therefore a deconstruction of power relations which is nevertheless, self defeating, unless it constructs a new system of power which can only be done socially. There is no individual liberation. This was the heart of the debate with Chomsky. IMO this view is both depressing and wrong. It is at the heart of so much that is wrong with the modern left, which seems contemptuous of progress that is not collective. And so we get identity politics which contains the core nihilism for which Foucault is criticised. The more affirming approach is that power operates through the manipulation of fear and desire, and liberation is for the individual, an engagement with the world which progressively masters this problem. Only the individual can pursue this within their own psyche. As an individual pursuit, there is a ray of hope that political action cannot provide, valid though such action may be for other reaons.

[@michaelmcclure3383]

Exactly right. This goes back to Schopenhaur's dispute with Hegelianism too.

[@TheWorldBelow360]

Good and it comes down to whether the sufferers really believe they have a choice. Otherwise, we would all be living in little Empirical vision quest Capitals of our own gated community personhoods by our own selves interred in almost a mortuary style of disinterested relationships, but who wants it to be that specific?

[@Frank-wr2nf]

I feel like what Foucault is talking about is way more general than that - it’s like calling CERN and standard-model-breaking-physics “woke” compared to the “golden age,” of Newton. You’re mapping your conception of western politics onto something that says nothing of the root of human experience, value, or ethics. It’s just some terms of the human condition that are inescapable. Nothing has been said in this video regarding liberation of the individual or engineering alternate structures of collective power. Those are concepts to be built on top of, and through the constraints of, power as a universal force. If you believe power is secured only through “manipulation of fear and desire,” than you’re missing the point entirely and haven’t changed your internal definition of the word power. The creator here mistakenly calls power akin to a force of nature, which is incorrect. Forces of nature, and human beings, all have power over their environment, it’s an intrinsic property baked into everything that happens. Power can be exercised without fear, without cynical manipulation, without hedonistic desire. Trust, love, fraternity, respect, and friendship are themselves a medium for power. One who trusts their spouse to make financial decisions on their behalf cedes power. One who trusts you in regards to life advice is ceding to you the ability to shape their future. Healthy children ultimately cede power to their parents out of a feeling of safety and fostered ambition. Power is simply a measure of how quickly you can perform a set amount of work, how quickly can you change things. The more someone loves and trusts you, the more people respect you, the more people listen to you, the more you can change in your environment and the faster you can do it. Individuals are liberated from the power in their environment acting on them to a variable extent due to an incomprehensible amount of factors, not all of which come from the individual’s perception and will. What you are describing as an individual pursuit is the drive to godhood, in which one, through their own free will, separates from their environmental influence to such an extreme degree that it is negligible. But that is impossible, everyone will always be dependent upon their upbringing and environment to form their identity and to enjoy life. There is a finite limit to what your will can do, human beings are fundamentally collective, social creatures who use communication to sort roles for each other and create structures larger than anyone human, regardless of the will to power of the strongest individual. Nothing about this is nihilistic. There is a balance to be struck in the mind of each individual, decided at each moment, a decision that impacts everyone around them. This has nothing to do with the left or the right, both of which are incomprehensible and philosophically incoherent. Neither are built out of philosophy, they are social, animalistic constructions like all human power structures. They are organic hodge podges of reactionary rhetoric and emotion. Some ideas are better, some worlds are better to live in than others, but hegemonic politics are incomprehensible if you try to make them internally consistent. If you end up believing something along those lines, you’ve yet to escape personal confirmation bias. The irony, of course, being that most people who believe exclusively in an individualist framework don’t realize how much their beliefs are simply a testament to the incomprehensible power of the hegemonic politics they have been exposed to during their development. Both the left and the right of Western politics, as well as every mass political movement in global history, is deeply nihilistic in this way. We’re all sheep to varying extents, doomed to betray our beliefs within every moment in at least one way with no awareness of doing so. Both the individual and the collective are inseparable. There is no collective unscarred by the strongest individuals, and no individuals yet to be molded by the collective. It is symbiotic. The only true life affirming aspect, is that most human beings will grow to decide what it is that’s important to them by middle age, and exert their power to shape their own individual environment over time, and allow themselves to only be shaped by others whom they love and trust, in so far as all existential threats have been accounted for and placated (pay your taxes, avoid dangerous locations/people/situations in general). You decide upon a framework of ethics, you do your best to abide. You expand and exercise your will at times, you cede willingly to the will of others at other times, yet you act on instinct or at the behest of a larger power structure most of the time. This is to say, human will is ultimately always finite, which is what defines the human individual’s metaphysical condition. We always rest between object and god, zero will and infinite will, no matter how clever or how powerful we grow to become. This is simply an unavoidable reality, not a political statement. Individual focused people will always be blind to the power that compels them, collective focused people will always be blind to the power they possess in the moment to resist their environment. Thus, like a debate between two religious beliefs, nothing about western politics could be called postmodern or relevant to truth itself, in fact there has yet to be a society or political ideology with any substantial cultural hegemony which can be called postmodern. Left vs Right can only be argued on a practical, outcome oriented level, not an ideological one. Both the study of the environment and collective structure as well as the will of the individual are valuable studies and are inseparable.

[@scythermantis]

There is an inherent presumption and arrogance whenever proposing individual solutions to collective problems, though. Why shouldn't I be just as suspicious that you choosing the individual as thd fundamental unit of analysis is an excuse to abdicate your social duty?

[@jamesbarlow6423]

I don't get the feeling the application of his manner of thinking fails to entail liberation of the individual at all. See "the lost interview of Foucalt" youtube vid.

[@clkvlk]

Subscribed, thanks for the great content

[@Anymonous246]

I love your channel, you always distill such dense concepts and readings into great insights. Are there any other philosophical channels of top quality like yours that you would recommend too? 🙂

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you so much! There's a few channels I love Eternalised is great for Jungian deep dives; Seeker to Seeker is a great one for Buddhism. I love Sisyphus 53 though they are shorter pieces. Plastic Pills is another good one if you're looking for more Continental Philosophy. Then & Now is also fantastic stuff

[@Anymonous246]

​@@TheLivingPhilosophy Awesome awesome, thank you so so much!! As a aspiring philosophy student and as well independent creator, what are some words of advice you would give for starting out? I'm paralyzing anxious about not being able to make enough to take care of myself, could you maybe share some insights you've gained on your path to financial stability? And if it's alright to ask, could you share maybe a ballpark range that your channel brings in nowadays? Again, thank you so so much. Have a lot more videos queued up that I need to absorb!!!

[@VirtualAgora]

Fantastic. Btw it's Sophocles' plays about Oedipus, not Aeschylus (3.20).

[@johannesjensenbunger265]

Another brilliant lecture, thank you so much

[@dontfreakoutwerejustclowns7023]

Super nourishing food for the mind! I just love your videos. Impatient to watch the follow up on Jung/Foucault 🙌

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thank you!