Thoughts on the bald vampire himself?

Thoughts on the bald vampire himself?

Attached: cef96e5eb5f1340adfbc695d03ec3ffb.jpg (300x400, 22K)

Foucault, Michel. Dislike him. A pathological rebel, homosexual and postmodernist. An AIDS-ridden degenerate, cherrypicker of facts and an intellectual terrorist who works off shock tactics. Some of his modern disciples are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his claims about madness being socially-constructed seriously.
Hermeneutics of the Subject. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals. Discipline and Punish. Dislike it intensely.
History of Sexuality. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

He has very interesting ideas, and quite a unique "directionless" way of writing his thoughts, not in a way that they seem stupid, but rather that he seemingly just put out thoughts on the table and its up for you to decide if you like them or not.
Granted ive only read Discipline and punish, the history of sexuality and the birth of the clinic.
Also he happens to be a homosexual, which makes me hate him with a fierce disgust.

chomsky called him once "the biggest moral relativist" he has ever met

> James Miller notes in “The Passion of Michel Foucault,” the anarchist Dutch host, Fons Elders, wanted to jazz things up a bit. So, aside from offering Foucault hashish for part of his payment, Elder tried repeatedly to get Foucault to wear a bright red wig while debating Chomsky. Throughout the debate “Elders kept poking Foucault under the table, pointing to the red wig on his lap, and whispering, ‘put it on, put it on.'” Foucault ignored him, robbing posterity of the memory, and the Foucault-Chomsky debate remains wig-less.

Attached: honklhonk.jpg (800x450, 47K)

Your fortune: Outlook good

Well, Chomsky's so-called objectivity only led him to his now thoroughly debunked and complete bogus universal grammar theory that even he has had to disavow, so I wouldn't trust him either.

In the debate they have, they kind of meander around until the host brings up the subject of 'justice' and they start ripping each other to pieces.

Foucault thinks only in terms of worldly power relations. He thinks belief in justice is like belief in God, it is a complete spook, there's nothing wrong with it really but one should accept personal responsibility for one's idea of 'justice' rather than claim that the leap of faith they are making is commanded by some objectively existing Essence of justice out there in the world of forms or whatever.

Even in terms of class struggle, which is what truly drives Chomsky bananas. He says that the exploited working class should indeed rise up, but that they shouldn't pretend to be doing it based on some transcendent ideology; in reality they're simply trying to rationally exercise their own power to increase their own well-being, which is fine, we all do it.

Chomsky's bleeding heart can't take that weight, although they both support the same cause ultimately, he depends on his moralistic spooks to keep him in the fight.

Foucault's numinosum is Power.

Anyone of you who have ever fapped to /d/ owe him a read, especially History of Sexuality and his essay on transgression. He understands your perversions far better than you do

I liked when he said basically the exact same things Barthes did but with different names for things so it seemed like he was coming up with something original

Attached: 1552940841792.jpg (1200x923, 80K)

>Barthes
are you unironically writing this shit out?
how are they even close?

You've never read the History of Sexuality.

True, it's too bad Foucault's history of sexuality caught up to him

...who? I forgot.

Attached: 1554134358071.jpg (427x550, 36K)

Everyone who doesnt like him is an absolute brainlet, baldie is based and if you watch his debate with chomsky, only to think chomsky "wins" you are actually retarded

muh author

Bit of a fag innit?

They are incredibly similar. Mythologies (1957) and The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) are similar, and Barthes Michelet (1954) was probably a heavy inspiration for Archaeology. And then you have Death of the Author (1967) and What Is An Author (1969). Foucault's "episteme" looks a lot like Barthes structuralist work as well.

You call that a bald vampire?

Attached: jhr-17-2-stimely1-l.jpg (1352x2058, 1.9M)

Based simulacra.

Based Crowleyposter

his work about the panopticon is pretty interesting

HOLY SHIT BASED

Attached: 1d5.gif (367x265, 558K)

its Spengler you pseud

Kek
Give me a like btw

Balder than my spooky

Why do Americans feel the need to believe in concrete objective truths?
They even infected Euro intellectuals that crossed the Atlantic before & after the war. Some of them were Frankfurt school jews even. Madness

if i swaffle your mongoloid cockface, then my dick hitting your chin is a concrete objective truth which you can't rationalize away.

discount gay nietzsche

>He says that the exploited working class should indeed rise up, but that they shouldn't pretend to be doing it based on some transcendent ideology; in reality they're simply trying to rationally exercise their own power
This is why fuko is based. I liked the bit he had where he says the academics are their own oppressive power structure as well

t.

Attached: 28d92f5594a8d6eaf9d3ad5004855e8f_400x400.jpg (400x400, 17K)

self-indulgent bullshit

t. triggered academic

You got TROLLED, my boye.

I really want to read this guy but I have no idea where to start anyone know the proper order associated with him?

Really disappointed to learn he wasn't a doctor. I fancy myself as emancipated by petit bourgeois values but having a medicine diploma is +1 point for me.

Fukken this.