Search Results
7/8/2025, 2:22:29 PM
>>24531253
Well, yeah. A whole thing with Foucault is criticizing the concept of Enlightenment reason and rationality through power-knowledge or whatever. Everybody is aspiring to some murderous or malicious instinct for knowledge that makes people seem more authoritative, and so there is no objective truth. There's something to be said for that, in that it's not just what people say that you need to take into account, but who is saying it and what do they get out of it.
If I tell you that you must listen to me because I drew myself in the form of a chadface and drew you in the version of an icky latte-drinking half-man, then that gives me power over you, and I get even more power if you then accept what I'm saying. So for Foucault, you should ask who am I and why I'm saying this.
The plot twist is that this doesn't have anything to do with the actual assertions at hand. So, I might be a bad guy, and what I'm saying is in my favor, but I'm also right. Or wrong. We don't know. Of course Foucault would not accept that at all because this whole "correct" and "incorrect" comes from all that rationalist stuff, but then another argument against him is that if we can't actually argue about anything, then that inevitably leads to the return of Authority.
BTW, Foucault embraced the Iranian revolution precisely because it was antimodern, anti-Western and anti-liberal. It was quite reactionary, and he was gay or genderfluid or whatever (he didn't like categories) and anti-authoritarian which is ironic, but he had this line about how the Iranians didn't "have the same regime of truth as ours" which was ambiguous and uncategorizable under the Western system (I think this is bullshit).
Well, yeah. A whole thing with Foucault is criticizing the concept of Enlightenment reason and rationality through power-knowledge or whatever. Everybody is aspiring to some murderous or malicious instinct for knowledge that makes people seem more authoritative, and so there is no objective truth. There's something to be said for that, in that it's not just what people say that you need to take into account, but who is saying it and what do they get out of it.
If I tell you that you must listen to me because I drew myself in the form of a chadface and drew you in the version of an icky latte-drinking half-man, then that gives me power over you, and I get even more power if you then accept what I'm saying. So for Foucault, you should ask who am I and why I'm saying this.
The plot twist is that this doesn't have anything to do with the actual assertions at hand. So, I might be a bad guy, and what I'm saying is in my favor, but I'm also right. Or wrong. We don't know. Of course Foucault would not accept that at all because this whole "correct" and "incorrect" comes from all that rationalist stuff, but then another argument against him is that if we can't actually argue about anything, then that inevitably leads to the return of Authority.
BTW, Foucault embraced the Iranian revolution precisely because it was antimodern, anti-Western and anti-liberal. It was quite reactionary, and he was gay or genderfluid or whatever (he didn't like categories) and anti-authoritarian which is ironic, but he had this line about how the Iranians didn't "have the same regime of truth as ours" which was ambiguous and uncategorizable under the Western system (I think this is bullshit).
Page 1