Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's your opinion on Foucault's conception of power?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's your opinion on Foucault's conception of power?

    What's your opinion on Foucault's conception of power?

  • #2
    Postmodernist bullshit.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with some of his basic idea, as truth is produced by power. What counts as knowledge differs across societies and across time Foucault argues that the idea of progress is illusory: knowledge does not make one free. Each society has its own truth discourse ( religion, science..etc.) which presupposes some social power relationships. What we think of as Western progress is really just another form of domination and controls. We replace one experience of reality with another. He is suggesting that power is not a tool that individuals or groups of people use, rather we are the tools of power. Int his analysis power becomes the subject or agent of history. For Foucault, there is not outside to power. We cannot escape it. We are always embedded in the web of power relations... Yes..

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Talise12 View Post
        I agree with some of his basic idea, as truth is produced by power. What counts as knowledge differs across societies and across time Foucault argues that the idea of progress is illusory: knowledge does not make one free. Each society has its own truth discourse ( religion, science..etc.) which presupposes some social power relationships. What we think of as Western progress is really just another form of domination and controls. We replace one experience of reality with another. He is suggesting that power is not a tool that individuals or groups of people use, rather we are the tools of power. Int his analysis power becomes the subject or agent of history. For Foucault, there is not outside to power. We cannot escape it. We are always embedded in the web of power relations... Yes..
        that's great! and what part dont you agree with?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post
          Postmodernist bullshit.
          why do you think so?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by pablozz View Post
            why do you think so?
            Simple. Try this as an experiment if you are a postmodernist fanboy and believe Foucault's bullshit about so-called "conception of power".

            Go to the top of a 30 storey building. Make sure there is hard concrete surrounding the building, no trees and no wind. Now run from the top of the building and fall.

            If you are not a dead splattered mess at the base of the building after your fall, you are free to have a discussion with me about science being exclusively "structures of truth/power".

            Hints: you are almost certainly going to be a broken dead mess at the bottom of the building no matter how Sophistic your mind is working for worshipful Foucault. Natural physical law doesn't change at the whim of pseudo-intellectual postmodernists bullshitting unsubstantiated meaningless sentences. Science merely describes these natural laws. This include the gravitation that would leave anyone - including of course postmodernists calling it into question as a "construct" - a broken mess at the bottom of that 30 storey building.

            Comment


            • #7
              Foucault give some interesting ideas sometime... I personnally can think about his idea of biopower and give it a chance because it's seducing (though there is absolutely no evidences), but many of his ideas aboutpower are jsut complete gibberish, like the way he switch the words of Clausetwitz to say politics is the extension of war by different means or his "micro-powers" concept... That's just irrational.

              Comment


              • #8
                The winner writes the history and determinate what is the truth, not the loser, this is the whole philosophy of power. That people tend to believe to a winner instead to a loser isn't really a big breakthrough in philosophy.
                I don't need such postmodern bullshit with lot of empty phrases which could be interpret in 150 ways, to understand such simple sociological mechanic.

                I like ideas of few modern left-wing orineted thinkers and philosopher, but this guy is just empty blah, blah like tons of those postmodern pseudo philosophers which never come to the point of their assumptions.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pablozz View Post
                  that's great! and what part dont you agree with?
                  He totally rejecting of the possibility of a universal morality:"He struck me as completely amoral, I'd never met anyone who was so totally amoral."
                  Foucault's refused to propose positive solutions to the social and political issues that he critiques.
                  If everything is shaped in history and relations of power, Foucault’s work undercuts itself, because by insisting that nothing is permanent he leaves himself with no solid ground from which to make judgments.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Talise12 View Post
                    He totally rejecting of the possibility of a universal morality:"He struck me as completely amoral, I'd never met anyone who was so totally amoral."
                    Foucault's refused to propose positive solutions to the social and political issues that he critiques.
                    If everything is shaped in history and relations of power, Foucault’s work undercuts itself, because by insisting that nothing is permanent he leaves himself with no solid ground from which to make judgments.
                    Some good points.

                    Every finite mind need to have faith on a certain ideology which he/she considers as his highest truth and unchangeable(permanent). In future some much higher truth might get stuck into our mind, but till that time, we need to keep on fighting that what we presently believe is always true and will never change.

                    Its true that if we deeply analyze everything, we might perceive that nothing is permanent and everything will change once. But this information doesn't mean anything to us. We are here to manifest our belief and understanding into realistic actions. And need to sacrifice our whole life to prove that what we believe is always permanent and thats why it becomes the 'unchangeable' truth. If the basis of any ideology starts with "nothing is permanent" , then it will always have a hard time to define its realistic objective.

                    Philosophy is not a waste. Its like the seed of any objective or realistic actions. but the premise or the basis of that philosophy should be based on an unchangeable truth.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                      Simple. Try this as an experiment if you are a postmodernist fanboy and believe Foucault's bullshit about so-called "conception of power".

                      Go to the top of a 30 storey building. Make sure there is hard concrete surrounding the building, no trees and no wind. Now run from the top of the building and fall.

                      If you are not a dead splattered mess at the base of the building after your fall, you are free to have a discussion with me about science being exclusively "structures of truth/power".

                      Hints: you are almost certainly going to be a broken dead mess at the bottom of the building no matter how Sophistic your mind is working for worshipful Foucault. Natural physical law doesn't change at the whim of pseudo-intellectual postmodernists bullshitting unsubstantiated meaningless sentences. Science merely describes these natural laws. This include the gravitation that would leave anyone - including of course postmodernists calling it into question as a "construct" - a broken mess at the bottom of that 30 storey building.
                      It's so specific for postmodernist bullshitters to reject objective reality, science, logic and to glorify self destruction, pseudo science and pseudo intellectualism. When some certain posters post here they appear like typical pseudo philosophers whose wording and vague ideas remind me of postmodernist guru trash....

                      I think Foucault's bullshit in general influenced one more representative of an extreme left - Edward Said and his book "Orientalism" which is full of postcolonial bullshit where he implies that absolutely each white European is a racist, imperialist, and I take such ramblings of his as ridiculous nonsense.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Etsia View Post
                        It's so specific for postmodernist bullshitters to reject objective reality, science, logic and to glorify self destruction, pseudo science and pseudo intellectualism. When some certain posters post here they appear like typical pseudo philosophers whose wording and vague ideas remind me of postmodernist guru trash....

                        I think Foucault's bullshit in general influenced one more representative of an extreme left - Edward Said and his book "Orientalism" which is full of postcolonial bullshit where he implies that absolutely each white European is a racist, imperialist, and I take such ramblings of his as ridiculous nonsense.
                        By definition, it's the goal of post-modernism to be against the logos... They are often qualificating the things out of postmodernism "logocentrism" and relate this logocentrism to ethnocentrism and logs of the western white man... lol. Seems there is an issue with the understanding of "logos", but nevermind, those poeple are unhealable...
                        However I wouldn't say Foucault is a postmodernist or, to be exact, I would say he as a little bit more than postmodernism sometime, though he felt in poststructuralism, which isn't better.

                        What I find funny about postmodernism is that, no matter if you talk about the "philosophy" (lel), or the "art" (lel x2), it's a piece of shit that is made - mostly- by something we call bobos (bourgeois bohemian) who have generally nothing more interesting than creating their own problems and being hysterical or creating a kind of dogma/new religion like veganism (though veganism is a laudable goal) or making intellectual masturbation to justify they used their ass to make a line of colour on a paper instead of trying to improve their skills :3
                        Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 10-13-2017, 01:06 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          What is this 'western white man"?

                          It is one very good attribute of the Western system that it can openly criticize the western system itself. I agree that somehow majority of the western men's ethnicity happens to be white, but majority of white happens to be post modernists too. Terms like 'white/black has no purpose over here except to polarize or politicize academic related stuffs.

                          Personally i believe my society is still grasped by the evils of colonialism. And no its not about white as racist, its about our own countrymen now. So yes, what i see regularly, i will write over here. I am not denying that it can go against the western system and sound like 'post colonial', or whatever terms you guys use.

                          I understand some of the politicians trying to label me as anti-white/anti European over here. I think people who uses a little more intelligence than emotion, can understand my words. Otherwise if it itches your white guilt sentiment, you might close your laptop and say 'Om'.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by RoyofSupratik View Post
                            What is this 'western white man"?
                            According to them, the rationality shouldn't be over the irrational because rationality can define irrationality, and because :
                            Logos from west > logos from soemwhere else. Logos from man > logos from woman. Logos from the majority > Logos from the minority.

                            The problem is that a logos is about proof, reason, logic... It's not about an ethnicity or a gender or I don't know what. Moreover, as aussieinbg said, if you jump from the top of a building, you are more likely dead.
                            To me, trying to say the opposite is, somehow, equal to glorifying ethos or worst, pathos which lead nowhere but in a good big and fat wall.

                            I won't say anything about colonialism except a thought : if you are still grasped, it's mostly the fault of the people, like for western countries with the election of their "leaders".
                            Last edited by Sancta_Lux; 10-13-2017, 06:54 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by aussieinbg View Post

                              Simple. Try this as an experiment if you are a postmodernist fanboy and believe Foucault's bullshit about so-called "conception of power".

                              Go to the top of a 30 storey building. Make sure there is hard concrete surrounding the building, no trees and no wind. Now run from the top of the building and fall.

                              If you are not a dead splattered mess at the base of the building after your fall, you are free to have a discussion with me about science being exclusively "structures of truth/power".

                              Hints: you are almost certainly going to be a broken dead mess at the bottom of the building no matter how Sophistic your mind is working for worshipful Foucault. Natural physical law doesn't change at the whim of pseudo-intellectual postmodernists bullshitting unsubstantiated meaningless sentences. Science merely describes these natural laws. This include the gravitation that would leave anyone - including of course postmodernists calling it into question as a "construct" - a broken mess at the bottom of that 30 storey building.
                              Try one more experiment.

                              Right now its Autumn in northern hemisphere, and the weather gives a hint of the harsh winter that will be arriving soon. Keep saying that you believe in a beautiful comfy weather and winter is a post modernist bullshit and you don't believe in it. Spend your nights under open sky thinking you are the king of the world and nothing can beat you.

                              If you are not frosted to death, you are free to propagate that systems of the world never changes. A crest is never followed by a trough. Post colonial/Post modernism will never replace Colonialism/Modernism.

                              Hints: There is no need to bring 'Physical' Science in this topic. Rather social science is a relevant topic over here. Science should not be politicized, as it helps everyone, starting from a scientist to a post modernist.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X