/lit/ - Literature

>>6689388
You gotta zig-zag with the Zizek (this is so fucking gay)

Don't read Foucault

>>6689394
>using gay as a pejorative

ugh, could you not?

>>6689402
lol

>>6689388

Nietzsche

>>6689388
tfw all you really needed was back home in flavortown

Should've stopped at Heidegger, man.

>>6689411
Seriously, don't. It reeks of immaturity.

>>6689448
This.
>>6689460
Boohoo

>not marching with Machiavelli
>not kekking with kierkegaard
topcuck

>>6689388
>maxxed out with
oh, shit! max stir-
>marx
that's...


alright, i'm summoning the spook lord, stand back

>>6689388
Approach Adorno.

>>6689460
whatever fag

>>6690028
Who?(non philosophy reader here beyond camus who doesn't count and whatever Faulkner counts for)

>>6690038
do you even own?

>>6689460
Getting upset about it is worse, gay

You have to at least try and lick Lacan.

>>6690041
>femalemuscle.com

#spooked

>>6689460
this post is gayer than Nietzsche's science

>not accepting Anselm
>not cucking Camus

Foucault is fairly original once you get to the Discipline and Punish era and beyond. He's working under a Heideggerean framework and appropriating Nietzsche genealogy, but he doesn't necessarily need a wealth of pre-understanding to approach.

Of course you could write papers on how Discipline and Punish is a rewriting of the Critique of Pure Reason after the event of Heidegger but that's not gonna fundamentally help you engage with him more profoundly.

>>6690220
I'm reading Heidegger right now and have Foucault waiting on my shelf, so maybe I'll read him next. In what ways does he adopt the framework of Heidegger?

What about Descartes? Kant? Kierkegaard?


Ps: Fuck Hegel systematics!

>>6689388
>Marx

Read Nietzsche

>>6690247
I see Foucault as explicating in a genealogical fashion what Heidegger was describing in regards to enframing and technology in the Question Concerning Technology. Disciplinary society and the later biopolitical analytic only makes sense in light of Heidegger explicating this particular, historical moment of Being.

Knowledge-power is also something that I've interpreted as a post-metaphysics ontology. These ontic structures and everyday practices delimit a certain horizon for Being to make itself intelligible. Sexuality, illegality, and such are things that are intelligible to us because our their place within the ontic-ontology.

Foucault presents Being to be fundamentally historical which is something that Heidegger pointed towards, but never explicitly formulated in a way that was analogous to his Being and Time style of analysis.

>>6689460
>harmless use of the word gay perturbs him/her

go project your closet homosexuality somewhere else

I-I Posted this exact same thing on here like 5 months ago..

>>6689460

Ugh is also an immature relic from a thirteen year old girl's MySpace.

>>6689388
did you really need to do all that just for foucault? Just reading Nietzsche would have sufficed

>>6689388

I think you're probably is a good position to read Foucault, if you've read something from all those other guys. Reading something of Kant's, possibly Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, since Foucault did a translation of that one, and I think the title alone suggests how it may be relevant to his main themes.

His buddies from rue d'Ulm, such as Althusser, Bourdieu.

Nietzsche is probably the single biggest influence on Foucault but History of Sexuality is pretty readable without any background knowledge at all. I'd say go ahead.

>>6690199

Julius Evola
Joseph de Maistre
Charles Maurras
Tomislav Sunic
Francis Parker Yockey
Oswald Spengler
René Guénon
Ernest Renan
Arnold J. Toynbee
G. A. Wells
Thomas Carlyle
Ted Kaczynski
Ragnar Redbeard
Charles Lindbergh
Juan Vázquez de Mella
Antoine Faivre
Carl W. Ernst
Kurt Almqvist
Ivan Aguéli
Olavo de Carvalho
Jean-Pierre Laurant
Tage Leonard Lindbom, AKA Sidi Zayd
Koenraad Logghe
Leo Schaya
Frithjof Schuon
Philip Sherrard
Wolfgang Smith
William Stoddart
Michel Valsan
Marco Pallis
Jean-Louis Michon
Martin Lings
Titus Burckhardt
Whitall Perry
Jean Borella
Hossein Nasr
James Cutsinger
Henry Corbin
William Chittick
Ismail al-Faruqi
Louis Massignon
Muhammad Husayn Tabatabaei
Syed Waheed Ashraf
Huston Smith

Get going.

Sit with Seneca
Neuter with Nietzsche
Put up with Plato
Keep up with Kant
Elocute with Epictetus
Rofl at Rand
weigh in with Wittgenstein

OK just heard of this slap head now. Too tired to read the Simple English Wikipedia article about him, can someone sum him up to me in more of a /lit/ lingo?

Schools based on prisons? why is that a bad thing isn't it because its well organized or is because its so well organized that its a form of power over students?

>>6690891
its more complicated than that. try reading the book

>>6689388
CRAWLIIIIIINNGGG

>>6690456

was going to say this. so is "could you not?"

>>6690884
nice shill

>>6690382
I'm a different anon, but to add to this, I think you'll see a lot of similarities in the two if you read Being and Time. Of course Foucault cites Nietzsche as his main source, but what's particularly revolutionary about Being and Time is the way Heidegger formalizes the Nietzschean approach. If you're interested in this particular interpretation Hubert Dreyfus is the guy to read, he's written a lot about Foucault and Heidegger and the connections between the two.

>>6690885
You do know Wittgenstein is pronounced with a V sound rather than the oo sound of the English language W?

Have you snuggled up with Spinoza?

>>6690019
>kekking with kierk

enough on my sides

>>6689388
Shoot the shit with Saussure, jack off JL Austen and then get dicked by the horrifying discourse of derrida

>>6689388
I know this is a meme, but read some Nietzsche and get some knowledge of structuralism (and I don't mean Saussure).
All the ones you've mentioned also provide a nice foundation for understanding Foucault even though he critiques them all.

>>6690873

Marx is up there too. When asked why he didn't cite Marx, he responded with something like "Everything I write has been influenced by Marx."

>not realizing Madness and civilization is a history of the lumpenproletariat

Though I don't think Kant is a huge influence on him, he actually does cite him and Vico in "What is Enlightenment?"

Nietzsche was a big influence too, (see Nietzsche, Genealogy, History), but the only useful books to understand Foucault are Genealogy of Morals, Birth of Tragedy, and maybe Beyond Good and Evil.

Every major philosopher. But, in particular, as other posters have already pointed out - you need to annihilate Nietzsche.

>>6690019
>kekking with kierkegaard

sounds like the name of soren's lost radio show

>>6693745
>Though I don't think Kant is a huge influence on him, he actually does cite him and Vico in "What is Enlightenment?"
He makes multiple references to Kant, most notably in the The Order of Things where Kant is the birth of "man" and "analytics of finitude", and then in his later years when he feels some affinity with the critical project even though he inverses Kant's formula (showing necessary to be contingent).
So some knowledge of Kant is useful to understand Foucault's broader project in the context of preceding philosophy.
However, it's possible to make sense of most of his 1970s-84 writings without knowing any philosopher, where knowledge of history is probably more valuable.

>>6690382
I think Foucault is further away from (at least early) Heidegger who still puts Dasein and its structures too much in the center. Foucault also tries to go beyond clarifying the background or horizon of our experience so as to find the fundamental meaning of it all, by letting the world be much more... unordered, changing, productive, superficial, and lacking any origins (which are replaced by "births").
So his understanding of truth (combined with power) seems very close to Heidegger's to an extent, but he also goes beyond phenomenology and hermeneutics. Another close influence seems to be Merleau-Ponty.

Don't forget to pleb out with Sam Harris

>>6689402

You don't frequent 4chan much do you?