[ 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

File: 9 KB, 220x346, 31SXWVPke0L._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

8362144

Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:41:30 2016 No.8362144 [Reply] [Original]

Just finished this. My first dig into Foucault, or philosophy in general (was given to my idiot roommate to read by his savant cousin, roommate passed it on to me), and I surely didn't get everything I could have out of it, but did appreciate a lot.

I had to write an essay on gaze for a photography class several years ago and cited some of Foucault's ideas in it that I'd passed over (e.g. Panopticon, unequal gaze, etc.) but hadn't gone into depth with them.

I have to say I wish the whole book could have explored page 200 onwards because the lead up sections, Torture and Punishment, are mainly historical with brief summarizations of "yup, this is what non-codified structures of power amount to." Which is fine, but superficial.

Really from 200 onwards did I find myself engaged by the ideas. Maybe I'm just digging reading about prison reform and injustices in the justice system, but Foucault talking about the literal architecture of structures of power is fascinating.

Anyway, maybe somebody else who's read this can talk with me about the book.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:43:45 2016 No.8362152 But why would you trust his writing on power structures? He is not a scientist who has developed sociological theories empirically and methodically. You don't take it seriously, right? Right?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:46:22 2016 No.8362159 I read the first page or so and found it extremely entertaining how erudite/dense is this work? it seems accessible from the 1 minute I spent reading it

>>

Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:47:46 2016 No.8362162

>>8362152
Throughout I was doubting nearly everything he was saying as there was so. much. rhetoric. but regardless of how much stock I put in his ideas, they were interesting at least.

For fuck's sake though why does philosophy have to have such verbose prose.

>>8362159
The first page does start off with a bang! Foucault indulges the reader in a graphic scene of 17th (?) century public torture with very visual descriptions of flesh being turned from the body etc. Wouldn't say it's very accessible but what kind of reading do you do otherwise? That is, do you read a lot of philosophical texts?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:50:01 2016 No.8362169 >>8362162 >For fuck's sake though why does philosophy have to have such verbose prose. Stop reading French pseudo-intellectuals, get your ass onto the analytic train

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:50:19 2016 No.8362171 >>8362162 >do you read a lot of philosophical texts exactly the opposite I was looking for something that isn't too referential or analytical, some pop-philosophy thing. Guess I'll have to keep looking.

>>

Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:51:02 2016 No.8362174

>>8362152
>>8362159
To build on this a little more, he often makes connections that don't seem supported by any relevant citations he's drawing from, or the citations lend themselves only to a certain part of his thinking. Furthermore, he often rephrases what certain quotes say in his own words, before the quote even occurs in the text, which seems like they would lend him some authority, but not to me.

>>

Anonymous Thu Aug 4 23:56:09 2016 No.8362185

>>8362169
Man, I'm also a Spanish speaker and I could see the liberal Romance syntax making the English translation blocky while I was reading. It was frustrating. Often it seemed like verbs were plural nouns, like certain verbs didn't agree in plurality with the subject they were referring to--made reading this even more difficult.

What would you recommend for an extremely new philosopher reader in the analytic school? I wouldn't be opposed to what I understand to be other post-structuralists (in fact I'm thinking of finally reading some Judith Butler because of her frequent references to Foucault), but I'd be down to give some analytics a try!

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:02:32 2016 No.8362214 File: 30 KB, 497x413, analyticsbtfo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8362169 >the analytic train

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:15:33 2016 No.8362260 >>8362185 If you can handle edginess, Russell is a very good starting point in analytics.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:18:25 2016 No.8362266 File: 49 KB, 800x800, analytics4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8362260

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:24:10 2016 No.8362278 >>8362266 Did I hurt your feelings? Why don't you go write an unintelligible deconstructionist book about it

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:29:27 2016 No.8362295 File: 36 KB, 500x667, analytics3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8362278 >he thinks Badiou is a deconstructionist! Pic related, analytic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:32:28 2016 No.8362301 >>8362295 Wow, you sure showed me with that picture from meme facebook groups run by state school english majors

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:34:21 2016 No.8362303 File: 13 KB, 221x308, derrida.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8362301 >he's privileging a mythic point of origin!

>>

Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:39:57 2016 No.8362325
File: 26 KB, 313x343, John Searle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8362303

>Thus, if the conceptual paradigm of narrative holds, we have to choose
between capitalist desituationism and subcapitalist discourse. The conceptual
paradigm of narrative holds that narrativity is capable of intent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 00:45:45 2016 No.8362354 File: 858 KB, 240x228, 1373853041871.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>8362325 >narrativity is capable of intent Is this what Analytics really believe?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 05:17:07 2016 No.8363014 >>8362152 >not accepting his genealogy as a valid method Sure is plebian today.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 07:11:04 2016 No.8363249 >>8362144 Foucalt loved Nietzsche who does this in his Genealogy of Morals; it's a lot less "here is my argument, and this event proves it" and a lot more painting pictures to get you to see from different perspectives.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 5 07:13:10 2016 No.8363260 >>8362171 Why waste time? Watts and Jung are the only pop philosophers with any merit, if you want dumber than that you may as well buy Tony Robbins books.