/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16838635]

This is actually pretty insightful, why does /lit/ hate it?

[Anonymous No.16838700]

>why does /lit/ hate it?
why do you think that

[Anonymous No.16838952]

>>16838700
Because any Foucault thread will become useless after two replies and devolve into pedophilia strawmanning.

[Anonymous No.16839036]

>>16838635
because poltards talk about foucault the loudest

[Anonymous No.16839042]

>>16838635
Paglia fans hating Fookoh out of principle for inspiring Judith Butler

[Anonymous No.16839043]

>>16838635
because faggots ignore the true worth of Foucault by focusing on the book you posted instead of his later work and ruin the whole fucking thread..

[Anonymous No.16839061]

>>16838635
kek isnt this the guy who went to faggot origies in burgerland, got AIDS, denied it existed, and then died

lmfao faggot refuted himself

[Anonymous No.16839071]

>>16838635
Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says, 'Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up.' Man bursts into tears. Says, 'But doctor…don't you realise circuses ressemble schools and hospitals, which ressemble prisons? Circus are secretly panopticons disguised as stages, it is art made to control the bodies of the masses"

[Anonymous No.16839089]

>>16839071
Based

[Anonymous No.16839095]

>>16839071

[Anonymous No.16839108]

>>16839071

[Anonymous No.16839184]

>>16838635
I'm reading it now and I agree with most of what he says. As a historical analysis it's very insightful.

As a fascist I disagree with the premise. Beneath all his rhetoric there's a simple assumption: doing anything at all to criminals = bad. Justice is important, and punishment for crimes is moral. In fact it should be eugenic.

Otherwise Foucault is correct in his analyses of the historical interplay between wrongdoer arbiter. It is a process that traumatizes both. Struggle is inalienable to life and this is a natural price that must be paid.

[Anonymous No.16839204]

>>16838952
that is more a commentary on /lit/ being retarded than hating discipline & punish. see the comments in this thread

[Anonymous No.16839208]

>>16838635
Because the truth is often subversive and damaging to ones deeply held convictions about society and morals. They only like Descartes in theory, they're not prepared to sift through their precious ideals one by one and discard the ones that don't hild to scrutiny

[Anonymous No.16839242]

>>16839184
>Beneath all his rhetoric there's a simple assumption: doing anything at all to criminals = bad
can you cite at least one part where he even implies any kind of moral judgement?

[Anonymous No.16839250]

>>16839242
Enthymeme is a good word for you to add to your vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.16839378]

>>16839250
can you cite at least one enthymeme where he even implies any kind of moral judgement?

[Anonymous No.16839763]

>>16839184
If anything Foucault would rather go back (though of course he wouldn't admit this) to the sovereign mode of punishment. Public spectacles of executions.

[Anonymous No.16839933]

>>16839378
It's the texture of the first two chapters, and I'm going to assume the rest of the book. You can insist it's not there, but you're either dumb or trying to gaslight.

>>16839763
I agree. He would even have good philosophical arguments for it. Ones I might even agree with. But only so he could, like Thomas Potter or de Sade, watch them with relish.

[Anonymous No.16840025]

>>16839933
>It's the texture of the first two chapters
the biggest mistake when reading Foucault is to see moral prescription into the text. I've read his texts in philosophy classes and literally every retard does this. "Umm so he wants to go back to public executions??" "So he says we shouldn't talk about sexuality???" "Sooo he says christianity is bad for the self?".

[Anonymous No.16840306]

>>16839184
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.16840483]

>>16840025
There is no prescription. The world is full of people who would will their squeamishness over justice into a utopian liberality.

They have no coherent ideology, no solution to their natural disgust. They stumble in darkness from one reform to another. This is far worse than the Catherine Wheel. At the end of their blind road is Benthamism. Panopticon. The totalitarianism of childless women with Bachelor's degrees.

Foucault is just one. His dread of the reality of crime and its punishments drips from every page. The deafening silence on moral prescription, contrasted with the fact of the book itself, makes clear his purpose. "Won't someone please do SOMETHING?" he cries without words. He scribbles it in blood on the bottom of the toilet lid. Then he takes a fist to the elbow for his crimes against nature, which executes its final sentence.

The great liberal question which Foucault dares not speak —how can civilization be when the cornerstone is savagery— has only one answer: Yes.

[Anonymous No.16842034]

>>16839184
what is fascist praxis these days? Can anybody observing your life tell you're a fascist if they didn't know what you posted on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.16842057]

>>16842034
https://nationaljusticeparty.com

[Anonymous No.16842080]

>>16838635
Because its not anywhere near as insightful as you think it is. He doesn't even mention Jeremy Bentham in his book, who designed the panopticon.

[Anonymous No.16842118]

>>16842034
Do you mean unironic, knowing fascists? Because then the answer is, yes, they post on 4chan and that's probably it. Do you mean the analogue to fascists in today's society? Groups like the III%ers are acting pretty much unchallenged in rural communities, providing law enforcement, survival training, and resources to the communities they're in.