Can someone explain this?

[Anonymous No.15174726]

>obsessed with power and the ways in which it manifests
>concludes that social constructs are tools of power and oppression
>proceeds to publish countless books- objects that are composed of tens or hundreds of thousands of social constructs in their purest form

[Anonymous No.15174772]

>>15174726
>obsessed with power and the ways in which it manifests
yes because he was a gay bottom
>concludes that social constructs are tools of power and oppression
that was a good thing in his opinion, he was literally a BDSM maniac who took cocks so big they could reach his sigmoid colon, he literally supported neoliberalism and biopolitics in his later work
>proceeds to publish countless books- objects that are composed of tens or hundreds of thousands of social constructs in their purest form
see above, he was ok with power and social constructs

[Anonymous No.15174960]

Is this the verdict? No one else has anything to say about this influential philosopher?

[Anonymous No.15175265]

I think it was Searle who, though he liked him, described him as "the least moral person I've ever met." I suppose it takes one to know one.

Foucault was definitely a powerful thinker, but ultimately I think that taking an antihumanist position reduces one's work to a collection of trivialities, one way or another. I'm not sure if the point about words being social constructs is a relevant criticism, but in a similar vein one could ask: why devote yourself to studying the history of humanity when each phase of a culture is merely locked in its peculiar "episteme"? What's the point?

[Anonymous No.15175277]

>>15174772
I thought he topped little boys though?

[Anonymous No.15175457]

>>15175265
that was Chomsky's remark after the debate with Foucault on human nature although Searle might have said that too