/lit/ - Literature

>>22500067
if you can't think of the solution yourself there's no solution.

>>22500067
Do a 3 year humanities degree in the English system.

>>22500067
Don't worry too much, some people are born to rule, while others to be ruled. There isn't anything you can do to change that.

>>22500067
>I want to read Michel Foucault, but I'm a brainfried zoomer.
Sounds like you can read Foucault just fine

>>22500067
Don't bother with anything else but Discipline and Punish. The rest are written in awful prose and/or badly researched, the History of Sexuality especially--Foucault didn't read all the ancient texts, he just cherrypicked the bullshit he wanted. That AIDED out fag didn't sit his ass down to read Galen's whole work back then whithout a translation from the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum.

>>22500067
You tried to read both foucault and Evola? What are you cooking up here anon???

>>22500067
His writing is obfuscationist. You’re not retarded for not understanding it. He wasn’t talented enough to write his ideas clearly. Discipline and Punish is interesting, but don’t break your back spending too much time on Foucault. Midwits like to think that incomprehensible prose is the mark of genius but it’s actually the opposite.

>>22500194

basically all the french theory.

>>22500194
>>22500200
France maintained a party school system and a private reading expectation amongst undergraduates. Foucault is piss fucking easy. The only deficiency in his texts is that as he is writing for an academic setting he lies consistency.

Try D&G. They believe what they write but come up against their own ability to write, or the ability to express. Heidegger's another one where obscurity was used deliberately to get at categories obscured by previous categories.

Fuck me undergraduates are dumber every year.

>>22500067
Archaeology is probably his most difficult book. Try D&P as others’ve said, or History of Madness, or better yet one of his lecture series

>>22500209
>Try D&G
Decorate & Garnish?

>>22500276
The loser and guitary.

>>22500094
>the History of Sexuality especially--Foucault didn't read all the ancient texts, he just cherrypicked the bullshit he wanted.
Partially true. It comes from him confusing hedonia with eudaimonia when reading Greek texts. That aside, the first volume of History of Sexuality is a great analysis of modern sexuality. The other volumes don't really match it. Vol 1 his work on biopower and Discipline and Punish should be essential reading.

>>22500067
You're trying to tackle mid-to-end game philosophical works without having done the entry-level philosophical works. That's your problem.

Why the hell would you read the Archaeology of Knowledge if you aren't broadly familiar with the entirety of the Western philosophical tradition? Like, what the fuck nigga?

>>22500209
>>22500276
Dolce & Gabbana

>>22500067
If you are a sooner you can’t be older than 25. Try coming back to it in a few years while reading a lot of difficult texts in between. Grow your brain, read secondary texts, learn more vocabulary, anything really. Don’t be disheartened by your confusion, most of this kind of Theory stuff is just familiarity with the way philosophical assertions are constructed combined with the ability to picture/contextualize important jargon. It’s not rocket science, although it certainly takes way more creativity, open-mindedness, as well as the ability to doubt.

>>22500067
Why bother

Archaeology of Knowledge and The Order of Things are his "hard" books. That said he has written many books that could be easily read even by high schoolers (all in all Foucault was a very good and clear writer, at least when the theme of the book was contained enough – in the AoK and OoT he was basically trying to summarize his entire thought, so they tend to be too dense to be overly accessible). You should check Discipline and Punish, and the various volumes of The History of Sexuality. The History of Madness is very readable, but it is way longer than the other ones.

>>22500194
>>22500200
>>22500209
I'm not even into French theory, but when I hear this stuff I just know you all have not bothered to actually read any of this stuff, and are just parroting shit you've read on the internet. I would understand if we were talking about Derrida, but Foucault? Give me a break, most of his oeuvre is not only readable, but downright accessible, to the point where you don't need ANY background to read it and understand it all.

>>22500067
Try Madness and Civilization. Alternatively, don't read Foucault and read Edward Said instead.

>>22500677
it was the only thing my school library had by him

Keep reading more and more in this style until it makes sense.

Or you're just too stupid and nothing will help.