[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 217x346, 41ej0rYAbhL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6564511 No.6564511 [Reply] [Original]

How did Foucault manage to hide, in plain sight within the slim volume of a supposed history of sexuality, the most radical, earth shattering conception of power ever formulated?

How do people read this and not understand that Foucualt is basically laying bare the fact that "society" is really a multiplicity of combatants with their own diverse, convergent tactical usage of knowledge and power? As if the ending of Discipline and Punish wasn't enough.

In the war of particular groups against particular groups, one can't afford to be an outside observer.

>> No.6564527

>>6564511
he french homo pervert freak. hence i give his book a 0/10

>> No.6564529

>>6564511
Freud did it first.

>> No.6564533

>>6564529
lol you haven't read history of sexuality confirmed

>> No.6564535
File: 676 KB, 1122x1105, triangle sowrd guy in kilt.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6564535

Pyramid head approves this thread. epic

>> No.6564536

>>6564511
i heard this guy purposefully went around and infected literally hundreds of men with aids

>> No.6564540

>fact

>> No.6564547
File: 91 KB, 566x671, NietzscheonSJWandIndiegames.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6564547

>>6564511
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_to_power

>> No.6564552

>>6564547
actually read foucault. nietzsche and foucault's power are very different (though related)

>> No.6564564

>>6564552
aye

puissance and pouvoir respectively

>> No.6564566

>>6564536
from who? your dad?

>> No.6564570

>>6564511
>>6564529
>Stirner doesn't exist
>Thrasymachus doesn't exist

retards

>> No.6564573

>>6564566
from 4chins

>> No.6564576

>>6564570
has anybody read foucault lol

thrasymachus, stirner, nietzsche, and freud have almost nothing to do with what OP is talking about. figures like marx and hegel are much closer but still not the same

>> No.6564590

My philosophy is that i'm searching for a big azz dic that wnat to poz my neg ass

>> No.6564602

>>6564576
>figures like marx and hegel are much closer but still not the same

so a full of shit version of what many philosophers have already talked about?

>> No.6564605

>>6564576
OP, thin comparisons are the best you're gonna get out of this board.

>> No.6564607

>>6564590
>classic Foucault
Now that's what I call classic Foucault!

>> No.6564608

>>6564576
What? Nietzsche is his biggest influence.

>> No.6564610

>>6564511
>"society" is really a multiplicity of combatants with their own diverse, convergent tactical usage of knowledge and power
>In the war of particular groups against particular groups, one can't afford to be an outside observer.
Have you really read Foucault?
Anyway, what you're describing is what Foucault calls a "race discourse", although he uses the notion of race a bit more broadly, designating any group with its own history and truth being at war with other groups which in turn also have their own history and truth. He offers a genealogy of this discourse in his lectures "Society must be defended".

>> No.6564622

>>6564610
My reading rests on:

(1) Power is diffuse and comes from below. It is necessarily localized and particular. It is a power relation between particular groupings.

(2)There is no exteriority to the power-knowledge relation.

(3)Power relations, technologies of truth, and discourses are situated within an intentional logic that has aims and objectives. They necessarily form a fluid, semi-stable general strategy of a particular, though changing, grouping.

>> No.6564632

>>6564602
no. it's just not the same thing at all. why don't you actually read foucault

>>6564608
when foucault says "power" he is just not talking about the same power as the one in "will to power". foucault was still influenced by the will to power but the conception of power in history of sexuality is only tangential to that. foucault probably gets more from nietzsche in terms of method w/r/t history of sexuality

>> No.6564656

>>6564622
You're putting way too much emphasis on groupings, I don't know where you got any "groups" from Foucault at all actually. He wants to go beyond such ideas as class struggle.
Modern power is dispersed and situated in relations, it is also an individualizing power on the one hand, and on the other hand a power that strives towards "secure and constant circulations" (of people and things and moneys), which is especially typical of what we have right now.
(Hint: if you sabotage some circulation, e.g. import of certain commodities, or transport of people from city to city, then contemporary power starts collapsing.)

>> No.6565674

Can anybody explain how Agamben corrects or completes Foucault, as he claims to do?

>> No.6565683

>>6564511
OP literally hundreds of thousands of people living today know what you're talking about. Stop pretending that you're the only one that understands Foucault