>entire point of your career is to reveal the limiting presuppositions of discourse and free the dregs of society from tyrannies of meaning
>conduct all your writings in obtuse jargony idiom only comprehensible by bourgeois scholar-cultists with infinite leisure to learn the proper exegesis and read them
DESERVED HIS AIDS
>only comprehensible by bourgeois scholar-cultists
pleb detected
>>7743575
>conduct all your writings in obtuse jargony idiom only comprehensible by bourgeois scholar-cultists with infinite leisure to learn the proper exegesis and read them
its actually pretty straight forward
Did he regret his perversions in the end?
yeah, you never read foucault
>>7743575
>I can't understand Foucault so fuck him
>>7743654
you showed once again that you've never read foucault.
>they are both french, so they write the same :^)
I find derrida to be borderline incomprehensible, but foucault (especially his works from the 70s and beyond) is very readable
Did anybody else think Foucault was black at first because of the this picture?
>>7743672
how about we get any random person from any of the professions he critiqued and ask them what they think of his critique on a cold reading
or do you want me to report how my anthropology of medicine 6*** seminar went on tuesday where 14 graduate students had no fucking idea what he was talking about in the simplest most straightforward reading possible
Agreed OP, how the fuck can critical theory be taken seriously AT ALL??? What hope do normal people have if Schopenhauer and Chomsky don't have a fucking clue and freely admit so?
Critical Theory is just a load of attempted proof by analogies, over extrapolating, unfalsifiable statements melded together in to a really fucking overintellectualised mush which allows you to sprinkle in bits of your cultural capital ("*sniff* Theesh sheen een Fool Metal Jackeet perfectly parallels Father Zhosheema een Ze Brothers Karamazov...") for maximum pseudo-intellectuality.
>>7743698
Mate, Foucault wasn't a critical theorist, please stop, you're clearly the pseudo-intellectual here
>>7743708
I don't care, you know what I mean.
>>7743698
foucault actually IS brilliant but some of the criticisms leveled by chomsky e.g. are totally true, he is so wrapped up in his own uniqueness that he misses potential influences
when you have genuinely interesting insights about radical historicism and PAUL RICOEUR can't even interact with your work meaningfully you need to learn to write
>>7743718
I know exactly what you mean. You mean "I'm intimidated by absolutely anything outside my extremely narrow comfort zone so I'll just shitpost with some buzzwords I got from /lit/ and hope someone comes to my support".
>>7743575
>too stupid for math
>want to sound smart
>make up obscurantist bullshit
why are all Marxists the same?
>>7743737
Tell it to schopenhauer and chomsky you nignog
>>7743753
How the fuck did Schopenhauer criticize Foucault, or any critical theorist or post-structuralist for that matter, considering he died 100 before any of that happened?
Also, Chomsky isn't half the intellectual Foucault was.
>>7743758
He criticised obscurantists.
And if Chomsky had even 1 % of the recognition he currently has while being just as easily understandable, that's an INCREDIBLE achievement.
>>7743779
The thing is, Chomsky's fame isn't by any means related to his academic work, he's famous for telling americans what the rest of the world knows (How much the US is fucking Satan on earth).
And if you think Foucault is a obscurantist, I kindly point you to his work from Discipline and Punish onwards.
The only REALLY difficult text from him (from the ones I've read, obviously) is The Order of Things, and that's still leagues easier than say, Heidegger or most 20th century logicians
>>7743575
OP is right about Foucault writing unnecessarily difficult (though obviously in an exaggerated manner), and it is a legit criticism. Same goes for Bourdieu, Lacant, and many other French writers (but also Butler, for example). Claiming otherwise is simply ignorant/false.
>>7743678
I assumed until just this moment that he was half black. Was he not?
>>7743575
I thought I was a dumb pleb for not understanding him at first sight, but seems that I'm not the only one. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not happy for that. But I'd accept tips to understand Foucault better.
>>7747048
>I thought I was a dumb pleb for not understanding him at first sight, but seems that I'm not the only one
You're a dumb pleb for expecting to understand any philosopher at first sight.
>>7743746
pleb af desu senpai
>>7743779
*Foucault is incredibly easy to understand though, Schopenhauer's work is arguable harder.
*Foucault isn't a critical theorist
None of your comments make any sense bro.
Foucault is probably the easiest philosopher of the 20th Century, and easier than any of the major 19th Century philosophers. you need no more than a passing knowledge of philosophy to understand his major works. If you can't understand him, you either have rudimentary education, or you are of low intelligence.
>>7748783
Would you agree with these statements?
*The easiest philosopher to understand is Plato
*The hardest philosopher to understand is Hegel
*Nietzsche is an easy to understand philosopher
*The hardest philosopher of the 20th century to understand is Baudrillard
>>7748801
Marcus Aurelius
Puntel is the hardest. Hegel is only difficult because people who read him aren't well enough versed in philosopher.
Nietzsche is not easy to understand, if he were then there wouldn't be so many people disagreeing about what he REALLY meant
Hardest philosopher of the 20th Century was Lacan.
>>7748829
"Hardest" by the way, doesn't necessarily mean ambiguous or not lucid. Such terms might describe Lacan, but not Puntel.
yo is this the meme thread
anyway I find foucault the clearest of the p-structuralists but that doesn't say much. just read nietzsche and marx desu
>>7743678
So did I.
I don't know what the hell he was, dude. In his debate with Noam Chomsky in the 1970's he looks half-cast, and then other times he looks white.
>>7747048
pull your fucking head out of your ass you stupid fucking donkey, son of animal
>>7747048
Just read secondary materials first, and read about his influences.
Foucault isn't bad once you know what you're looking for. Derrida and Lacan for example are much worse, with most discussion of Derrida/Lacan really being some sort of intersubjectively agreed consensus on what they "meant." Foucault is a little bit of this as well, where people who call themselves Foucauldians are often presenting a pinned-down agreed consensus of "what Foucault meant."
Which is funny, because Foucault was against that sort of thing in theory, but as a Parisian celebrity intellectual it's obviously what he wanted.
