Foucault - the intellectual godfather of "Woke" was an abuser.

It has been known for some time that Michel Foucault behaved badly during his life and had some very bad ideas for which he has not been properly condemned. Yet he is the most cited scholar in the world.
THE. MOST. CITED. SCHOLAR.
EVER. IN THE WORLD. Think about that.

The intellectual movement of which he was a main founder is the dominant ideology in academia today - postmodernism. It has infiltrated everything.

Yesterday the UK Times piblished an article on Guy Sorman's recent allegations about Foucault raping young boys in Tunisia in the late 1960s.
It is here. I will link at the end to a reddit transcription so you can read past the paywall.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-philosopher-michel-foucault-abused-boys-in-tunisia-6t5sj7jvw

Personally I believe that intellectuals / creators/ anyone's work cannot be divided from their lives when it comes to honest appraisal, especially if such work is influential. Yeats wrote about the choice people have to make - the perfection of the life or of the work. I think he was trying to excuse himself his own foibles, pretending it was not possible to be both intellectually a star and morally a good person. I disagree. If one cannot walk the talk the talk is fundamentally diminished. Whether you are Osho preaching enlightenment but hopping off the anxiety meds or Jung preaching exacting self awareness but hoping off the addled young ones who were his patients, or Foucault, pretending to intellectual brilliance but just looking for solipsistic ways to justify ones own vile decrepitude.

What do ya reckon?

Full copy of text a few posts down on this reddit thread

https://amp.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mfbdnv/french_philosopher_michel_foucault_sexually/

CtevenSrowder

If you are going to preach, then you need to practice what you preach. Otherwise you best shut up and others should ignore. Though if your work is of scientific value, then it is imperative it is not ignored, regardless of who has conducted the research. I don't believe Folcault would meet this criteria however, as he was a philosopher.

I don't really get what is supposed to be so brilliant about Folcault, but I'm no expert on him either.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I believe that intellectuals / creators/ anyone's work cannot be divided from their lives when it comes to honest appraisal, especially if such work is influential.

I would disagree. The list of those who have positively influenced civilisation throughout history and who were complete dickheads in their lives is a very long one. Never mind how attitudes to certain things shift over time and what was once seen as an accepted truth may not be any more. We can't always reject someone's overall philosophies or works because some don't conform to our current ones. Aristotle was a giant of western civilisation and influential for a couple of thousand years, yet he saw women as inferior and defended slavery as an institution. Charles Darwin because of the era he grew up in considered women inferior and the White race as the favoured one. Pretty much every one of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment would be seen as unrepentant racists today. Ancient Greek civilisation has had a massive influence on Modern Europe and the western world and yet that society was extremely sexist, slave owning and considered non Greeks to be largely little better than savages. If Hitler wrote "the sky is blue" would it make it any less true?

PS I consider some aspects of postmodernism to be valuable, though very few of them were novel ideas, and it has been taken too far as a way to frame a worldview.

CtevenSrowder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

If you are going to preach, then you need to practice what you preach. Otherwise you best shut up and others should ignore. Though if your work is of scientific value, then it is imperative it is not ignored, regardless of who has conducted the research. I don't believe Folcault would meet this criteria however, as he was a philosopher.

I don't really get what is supposed to be so brilliant about Folcault, but I'm no expert on him either.

I agree. And I am no expert on him either. But almost any modern approved philosopher these days has been heavily influenced by him, so one does not need to directly know his work. Especially his influence is in identity politics.

It is a good point re scientists. They can be decrepit personally but if the empirical results of their findings can be repeated objectively then their personal lives cannot detract from that factuality. Philosophy though - how we think - that is subjective.
I am seeing intelligent people who liked Foucault looking for ways to detach his work from his practices. I think that is untenable. Our thoughts are very much products of our character.

But I have seen the same in religious cults where beloved gurus turned out to be raping the children - otherwise good and sane people just cannot let go of their blind attachment for the teacher and will twist reason and deny what is in front of them rather than change or condemn.

Mike Murdock

Most adherents to the woke ideology will not have even heard of Michel Foucault so this will change nothing.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I would disagree. The list of those who have positively influenced civilisation throughout history and who were complete dickheads in their lives is a very long one. Never mind how attitudes to certain things shift over time and what was once seen as an accepted truth may not be any more. We can't always reject someone's overall philosophies or works because some don't conform to our current ones. Aristotle was a giant of western civilisation and influential for a couple of thousand years, yet he saw women as inferior and defended slavery as an institution. Charles Darwin because of the era he grew up in considered women inferior and the White race as the favoured one. Pretty much every one of the great thinkers of the Enlightenment would be seen as unrepentant racists today. Ancient Greek civilisation has had a massive influence on Modern Europe and the western world and yet that society was extremely sexist, slave owning and considered non Greeks to be largely little better than savages. If Hitler wrote "the sky is blue" would it make it any less true?

PS I consider some aspects of postmodernism to be valuable, though very few of them were novel ideas, and it has been taken too far as a way to frame a worldview.

You are not comparing like with like. Foucault died in 1984. He is not an ancient philosopher or a Victorian. We all knew in the 1980s as now that raping kids is bad. We knew then that casually infecting people with AIDS was bad. Regardless he was and is rampantly acclaimed.

TomTomTim

The poet, Allen Ginsberg, was once loved by the left too. He's was openly pro pedophilia most of his life, and was a big supporter of The North American Man/Boy Love Association

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

You are not comparing like with like. Foucault died in 1984. He is not an ancient philosopher or a Victorian. We all knew in the 1980s as now that raping kids is bad. We knew then that casually infecting people with AIDS was bad. Regardless he was and is rampantly acclaimed.

The distance of time has some impact, but little enough in my humble. Victorian times wasn't so long ago and even within those times there were some people who would have considered say Darwin's attitudes to women and other races incorrect. It again for me comes down to can his works stand on their own. Are they arguable? Have they real world applications. And at least for some of them they clearly do. Postmodernism has tended to be taken by both the "left" and "right" on face value and used as a ball to kick between them, with few enough of either persuasion having actually read much on the notions contained with the philosophy itself. IIRC he was a driver of the notion of poststructuralism, something that you find little enough of in "woke" thought. Bugger all of the "woke" or "anti woke" would even know what it was or what it meant.

silverharp

If the contribution was Science or Music then one can distance the person from their output. Philosophy or Politics less so, a deeply morally debauched individual isnt likely to develop the perfect system to advance mankind, probably the opposite it will be a system that excuses their behavior in some fashion. A child rapist writing about power dynamics.......

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The distance of time has some impact, but little enough in my humble. Victorian times wasn't so long ago and even within those times there were some people who would have considered say Darwin's attitudes to women and other races incorrect. It again for me comes down to can his works stand on their own. Are they arguable? Have they real world applications. And at least for some of them they clearly do. Postmodernism has tended to be taken by both the "left" and "right" on face value and used as a ball to kick between them, with few enough of either persuasion having actually read much on the notions contained with the philosophy itself. IIRC he was a driver of the notion of poststructuralism, something that you find little enough of in "woke" thought. Bugger all of the "woke" or "anti woke" would even know what it was or what it meant.

People's character does effect the way I think about their work as I have grown older. Their subjective work. Even their objective work to be honest, but at least objective science results are replicable so can be accepted as objectively true.
But modes of thought are subjective.
I was mad about Jung for decades and then I realised his thought is completely imbued by his own narcissism, selfishness and delusion. It colours everything about it, even his motivation for pursuing his studies. It made me question everything I had accepted from his work as arguable or applicable in the ''real'' world.
Unless something from the world of philosophy and ideas can be experienced personally and replicated now I have suspicions / skepticism of it. Or at least I know fully if I accept it then it is an emotionally driven acceptance on my behalf and not something that can be imposed upon the external world.

Foucault considered himself the disciple of Georges Bataille who in turn considered himself a follower of de Sade. These are the influences on his theories of transgression. I find these people including Foucault remind me very much of Aleister Crowley and they seem to have inspired similar cult followings. Luckily most people out grow Crowley by the time they have sense and influence in the world - but Foucault's ideas get to be implemented in real time, in say gender theory or this wave feminism or critical race theory which is really playing out to its inherent idiocy in the US right now.

Given that ''power'' and the wielding of it was so central to his analyses of history for me personally it is undermining of his credentials that he was wielding his own physical power and his status as a visiting honorary person to be raping 8 year old North African children while so preaching.

For anyone who wants a simple outline of the influence of Foucault in present times Helen Pluckrose made that outline here -

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-enduring-legacy-of-michel-foucault/

Earthhorse

Is an idea responsible for the people who believe it or beholden to the people who came up with it? I don't think so. If a surgeon comes up with a brilliant surgical technique do we stop using that technique when we find out he was a pedophile? Of course not.

Some are making the distinction that because these are philosophical or political ideas the source is more important but that holds little water; the idea should be supported or debunked on its merit. Part of that merit should be its practical application in the real world which should by no means be limited to that of its progenitor.

I know little enough about Foucault's life and whether these allegations are true but if they are the time to bring him to justice was when he was alive and the time to bring comfort to his victims was during their lives. There's little enough interest in that it seems though we do appear to be getting marginally better at it.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Is an idea responsible for the people who believe it or beholden to the people who came up with it? I don't think so. If a surgeon comes up with a brilliant surgical technique do we stop using that technique when we find out he was a pedophile? Of course not.

Some are making the distinction that because these are philosophical or political ideas the source is more important but that holds little water; the idea should be supported or debunked on its merit. Part of that merit should be its practical application in the real world which should by no means be limited to that of its progenitor.

I know little enough about Foucault's life and whether these allegations are true but if they are the time to bring him to justice was when he was alive and the time to bring comfort to his victims was during their lives. There's little enough interest in that it seems though we do appear to be getting marginally better at it.

The brilliant surgeon's technique is an example of an objective truth.

Philosophy is mostly a very long argument people have been having with other people who are a long time dead about the way things are. It is entirely subjective.

I think that people's character's completely imbues and motivates their personal philosophy. Precisely because it is a subjective pursuit.

Foucault raped children and this habit/craving was undoubtedly part of his motivation for analysing history (madness, crime, sexuality, whatever he studied) in a manner that sought to unravel much of the protective foundational elements of society eg he publicly advocated for the age of consent to be abolished.
He was purely motivated by his own desires, derelictions, and depravities to use his undoubtedly formidable intelligence to construct a philosophy that vindicated and facilitated his own predation. I think that his philosophy can be critiqued fully on the basis that it emanated from and was motivated by his own completely amoral character. The idea that the work is not infused by the creator is not tenable to me.
Why he theorised the way he did is not a mystery. It served his ends. That his theories have been so widely embraced by genuine people who are not deviants is a more difficult question. Will people continue to embrace a deviants apologia - probably. Cults are hard to shrug off.

wes

The term work was is an AAVE (African American Vernacular English) term, and Foucault is not the intellectual godfather of it ffs:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin

Honestly, these "woke" boogie man thread are getting dumber and dumber. It seem we have people just trying to shoe horn the word "woke" into anything and everything for some bizarre reason.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For anyone who wants a simple outline of the influence of Foucault in present times Helen Pluckrose made that outline here -

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-enduring-legacy-of-michel-foucault/

The author of the article has a point -


If we don’t want Foucault to become another Augustine and direct Western civilization for many years to come, we need to be able to recognise his ideas when we see them and counter them effectively.


It doesn’t matter to me whether or not Foucault becomes another Augustine, I recognise the origins of an idea, and I do think it’s important to be able to counter ideas effectively. Playing the man though, and not the ball, accusing him of being a paedophile with no supporting evidence, that’s not countering his ideas, it’s taking an underhanded pot shot at the person and looks like it’s just more playing dirty identity politics.

I tend to think of it in terms of the preacher preaching against homosexuality, and critics of his ideas instead of arguing against his ideas, out the preacher as a homosexual, and those people opposed to his ideas take a certain glee in his downfall. I won’t call it shadenfraude because it’s more sinister than that and shows them up for the hypocrites they are that they too preach love and tolerance and all the rest of it, but given half the chance they aren’t any different from the people who from their perspective are morally bankrupt.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The author of the article has a point -


If we don’t want Foucault to become another Augustine and direct Western civilization for many years to come, we need to be able to recognise his ideas when we see them and counter them effectively.


It doesn’t matter to me whether or not Foucault becomes another Augustine, I recognise the origins of an idea, and I do think it’s important to be able to counter ideas effectively. Playing the man though, and not the ball, accusing him of being a paedophile with no supporting evidence, that’s not countering his ideas, it’s taking an underhanded pot shot at the person and looks like it’s just more playing dirty identity politics.

I tend to think of it in terms of the preacher preaching against homosexuality, and critics of his ideas instead of arguing against his ideas, out the preacher as a homosexual, and those people opposed to his ideas take a certain glee in his downfall. I won’t call it shadenfraude because it’s more sinister than that and shows them up for the hypocrites they are that they too preach love and tolerance and all the rest of it, but given half the chance they aren’t any different from the people who from their perspective are morally bankrupt.

Why are you conflating homosexuality and paedophilia?

wes

wes wrote: »

The term work was is an AAVE (African American Vernacular English) term, and Foucault is not the intellectual godfather of it ffs:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/woke-meaning-origin

Honestly, these "woke" boogie man thread are getting dumber and dumber. It seem we have people just trying to shoe horn the word "woke" into anything and everything for some bizarre reason.

Pop culture, man. Woke is a widely used term now in the lexicon and it is used as a pop culture short hand term in this case so people know the general area referenced . And Foucault is considered a prominent theorist in the field of what is now called wokeness, aka the general area referenced /influenced by his ideas.

Though personally I think woke is used as a cutesie disguise word for often quite sinister things.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why are you conflating homosexuality and paedophilia?

Full marks for interpreting the post as it was intended.

Chips Lovell

The culture wars can be so reductive, pervasive, and just tediously predictable. We've long ago reached the point where people's judgement of the crimes or misdeeds of notable figures are governed not so much by the deeds themselves but more by who is doing the accusing and which camp the accused is believed to be associated with. The very people decrying one historical figure will be the same people bemoaning "cancel culture" when it comes to another.

It's almost as if nobody cares about the crimes themselves. They're just grenades to be tossed at the other camp.

Also, I'm assuming "woke" is the latest lingo for "SJW", i.e. derogatory term for "right on" lefty student types that's never actually used by people it purports to describe? If so, I'm not entirely sure Foucault fits into their camp. I've no doubt there's a fair few in that brigade who've cited Foucault on occasion and even pretended to have read him, but there isn't that much crossover, particularly if you consider Foucault's moral relativism and the current vogue for moral absolutism.

Junkyard Tom

Is this the latest shite doing the rounds in the reactionary circuit?

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Is this the latest shite doing the rounds in the reactionary circuit?

Awkward, isn't it?

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

Awkward, isn't it?

Unconvincing, more like.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Unconvincing, more like.

Really? What is unconvincing? That Foucault was a paedophile? Or that his very influential theories are those of a paedophile?

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

That Foucault was a paedophile?

Yes.

Or that his very influential theories are those of a paedophile?

That it matters.

Earthhorse

Earthhorse wrote: »

Yes.



That it matters.

Apparently it was very well known for quite some time. I find it convincing. Especially since he campaigned for abolition of age of consent laws.

In a radio interview in 1978, Michel Foucault argued that children are able to give consent to sexual relations, saying that assuming “that a child is incapable of explaining what happened and was incapable of giving his consent are two abuses that are intolerable, quite unacceptable.

And it matters, because the scholarly world's most cited and famous French paedophile does not sound nearly as wholesome as the world's most cited and famous French philosopher, when one is an aficionado of his school of thought. And yet 'tis true.

James Brown

Earthhorse wrote: »

Unconvincing, more like.

Desperate too.

FTA69

Foucault did apparently sign a petition calling for the age of consent to be lowered and stated that children can give consent to sexual relations with adults. Now call me an old fashioned prude, but the idea of grown adults having sex with kids and this being normalised isn’t a good thing at all. A lot of this postmodernist stuff started off about “subverting the dominant narratives around sex and the patriarchy” and ended up in some very strange places in this regard - not just Foucault but other eminent and hugely referred-to people such as Judith Butler.

As I’ve said on other threads in this forum before, this postmodern academic stuff (later expanded upon in American universities) and things like Critical Race Theory and ‘Intersectionality’ have been a massive diversion for the left and those concerned with changing society; bogging us down in cultural w*nk and accentuated division. There’s a reason a lot of this stuff has been entirely co-opted by corporations and political figures invested in the status quo - namely that it presents no challenge to the main material division in society ie who has all the money and power.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

Foucault did apparently sign a petition calling for the age of consent to be lowered and stated that children can give consent to sexual relations with adults. Now call me an old fashioned prude, but the idea of grown adults having sex with kids and this being normalised isn’t a good thing at all. A lot of this postmodernist stuff started off about “subverting the dominant narratives around sex and the patriarchy” and ended up in some very strange places in this regard - not just Foucault but other eminent and hugely referred-to people such as Judith Butler.

As I’ve said on other threads in this forum before, this postmodern academic stuff (later expanded upon in American universities) and things like Critical Race Theory and ‘Intersectionality’ have been a massive diversion for the left and those concerned with changing society; bogging us down in cultural w*nk and accentuated division. There’s a reason a lot of this stuff has been entirely co-opted by corporations and political figures invested in the status quo - namely that it presents no challenge to the main material division in society ie who has all the money and power.

Well good to see there are at least 2 others on this site who agree with me
I must also tell Ayaan she is ''desperate''...

https://twitter.com/Ayaan/status/1376544791140331522?s=20

TomTomTim

A bare minimum, would be some condemnation, yet there's not one bit of it here from any of the usual suspects. Threads like this certainly don't persuade people against the view that the modern woke/progressive movement is a home for deviants of all stripes.

Sartre also signed a petition to decriminalise sex with children, and he’s considered second only to Marx for many socialist theorists.

Earthhorse

FTA69 wrote: »

Foucault did apparently sign a petition calling for the age of consent to be lowered and stated that children can give consent to sexual relations with adults. Now call me an old fashioned prude, but the idea of grown adults having sex with kids and this being normalised isn’t a good thing at all.

Apparently he didn't sign that petition but did write an open letter which was milder in its argument. Normalising pedophilia is definitely not a good idea but it hasn't been normalised, not by Foucault nor by anyone else.

FTA69

I mean, as much as I dislike Foucault’s positions on stuff, the accusation against him is one lad saying “I saw this”. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if he was a nonce but I’m also cautious of this stuff getting thrown out constantly.

The reality is that child sex abuse is a societal problem that is irrelevant to political position. There are wrong uns from royalty to the poorest of the poor, from right to left to centre, across religions and nationalities.

TomTomTim

TomTomTim wrote: »

A bare minimum, would be some commendation, yet there's not one bit of it here from any of the usual suspects. Threads like this certainly don't persuade people against the view that the modern woke/progressive movement is a home for deviants of all stripes.

I think you mean condemnation And yes, I too noticed the almost complete absence of it.

FTA69

Earthhorse wrote: »

Apparently he didn't sign that petition but did write an open letter which was milder in its argument. Normalising pedophilia is definitely not a good idea but it hasn't been normalised, not by Foucault nor by anyone else.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

Says here that he did?

Earthhorse

FTA69 wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

Says here that he did?

According to these comments maybe not:

https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/mfbdnv/french_philosopher_michel_foucault_sexually/gsoutv2/

There was more than one comment when I started this post on the Reddit thread but the others appear to be gone now. One specifically contained a link to the French Wikipedia article in which he is not listed as a signatory. Sorry, can't find it now.

.anon.

wes wrote: »

Honestly, these "woke" boogie man thread are getting dumber and dumber. It seem we have people just trying to shoe horn the word "woke" into anything and everything for some bizarre reason.

The way they've clung onto that word is the oddest thing. I have literally never heard the word "woke" (as an adjective) being uttered out loud in-real-life by anyone ever.

Biker79

.anon. wrote: »

The way they've clung onto that word is the oddest thing. I have literally never heard the word "woke" (as an adjective) being uttered out loud in-real-life by anyone ever.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

.anon.

.anon. wrote: »

The way they've clung onto that word is the oddest thing. I have literally never heard the word "woke" (as an adjective) being uttered out loud in-real-life by anyone ever.

Yes, that is the biggest problem with this story. Now that it has been brought to my attention, frankly I am appalled by the egregious use of the word woke, it is vile and disgusting and truly troublesome.
Phew, at least I have that out of my system. Now what was the other thing..?

One eyed Jack

TomTomTim wrote: »

A bare minimum, would be some condemnation, yet there's not one bit of it here from any of the usual suspects. Threads like this certainly don't persuade people against the view that the modern woke/progressive movement is a home for deviants of all stripes.

You weren’t open to being persuaded otherwise in any case if you’re being honest about it, which is exactly why there is a lack of condemnation forthcoming for what amounts to an unfounded accusation coming from the same usual suspects. It’s the latest stick with which to beat those who disagree with your politics. For everyone else it’s old news that French philosophers (indeed quite a few philosophers now I think of it) had some fairly oddball ideas about sex and sexuality.

I’ve never thought much of Foucaults works to begin with, and before I read the article linked to, I was interpreting the question more broadly as it came up before in relation to Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter (was never a fan of his either) and whether or not the ideas or the output of the artist or philosopher or the creator, can be separated from the person. Gandhi was something of an oddball and all.

But looking to one-up people such as taking a certain delight in the misfortune of Jordan Peterson for example, or using Foucault’s oddball ideas to associate wokes/progressives with support for child abuse?

I dunno ‘bout you, but just seems a bit crass to me tbh.

.anon.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now what was the other thing..?

That a philosopher who wrote that paedophilia is Good, Actually... may well have been a paedophile himself. Which means that being "woke" is bad or something.

Junkyard Tom

What this is is a dopey attempt to kill ideas - it's 21st century anti-intellectualism from the reactionary circuit of pseudo-intellectual grifters. I don't even need to read up on Foucault, or his ideas, or whether he was a peado or not, to know this.

Here, I'll have a go at it myself.

George Washington was one of the founding Fathers of the US and was instrumental in the crafting and adoption of the US constitution.

Well guess what lads... George Washington kept human beings as livestock. So if you support all those ideas in the US constitution then you're in cahoots with a person who kept human beings as livestock. Bad men have bad ideas and you are bad if you have any association with these ideas.

George Washington died 200 years ago, for anyone who does not know. Foucault was alive during many of our lifetimes and his modes of thought are positively drooled over still.
He wanted to upend truth and science - both merely constructs according to him, used and built solely to wield power - because he wanted to dissolve all the old grand narratives (except his own, of course).

And the reason he, in particular, was highly motivated to do that was because he was a depraved man, and he did not wish old fashioned tenets of morality or truth to apply to him. So he employed sophisticated intellectual tools to describe a world where his perversions would be free of oppression/repression. To justify himself to himself. Which in fairness is what we all do - usually thankfully our scope of power is limited to our own living rooms, if even that.

With all ideas, movements, cults, fashions, occupations, activities, hobbies, (boards threads) one should look around sometimes and see whose company one keeps. Who are the leaders? Who do we follow? To whom are we grateful? Whose word is sacred? Who is infallible? Who taught us to think like we do?

jam_mac_jam

.anon. wrote: »

That a philosopher who wrote that paedophilia is Good, Actually... may well have been a paedophile himself. Which means that being "woke" is bad or something.

He is a big influence on postmodernism, and to critical race theory and intersectionality.

85603

dont give a shyte about foucault.

but, ... you've just taken an allegation and conveyed it like its a fact.

was the guy convicted of any crime?

show conviction or gtfo.

kowloon

From my limited knowledge, influential people are more likely to be pieces of **** than the average joe, you still don't dump all their ideas out. How many of the people complaining about the wokeaggeddon that is supposed to be hitting us were arguing that Donald Trump being a piece of **** was no reason to judge his presidency harshly? But if we can throw out someone's work on the grounds that they're a bad person can I nominate Ayn Rand? The definition of a ****.

jam_mac_jam

If we disregard everyone who is a pervert then we are going to loose a lot of knowledge.

I am in two minds about this, his actions are obviously disgusting but does that effect his ideas or his books?

How far do we take that as the example above, all the founding fathers had slaves.

jam_mac_jam

Also, are all french men perverts? Did anyone not campaign for the lowering of the age of consent in the 70s.

It's all very depressing.

Same with Gaugain, all those beautiful paintings and in my innocence I never saw the dark side of it. I wad quite sad finding out years later he was a scumbag.

Dyr

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What this is is a dopey attempt to kill ideas - it's 21st century anti-intellectualism from the reactionary circuit of pseudo-intellectual grifters. I don't even need to read up on Foucault, or his ideas, or whether he was a peado or not, to know this.

I like how you keep using "reactionary" unironically.

boardise

Whence the assumption - which seems to be widely held - that all eminent artists ,scientists,philosophers etc. must be found to be moral paragons or else their work is somehow nullified and inadmissible?
Whatever is behind it , this kind of thinking makes no sense to me and I reject it completely.

jam_mac_jam

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

If we disregard everyone who is a pervert then we are going to loose a lot of knowledge.

I am in two minds about this, his actions are obviously disgusting but does that effect his ideas or his books?

How far do we take that as the example above, all the founding fathers had slaves.

One would have to take into account that his teachings sought specifically to excuse perversions such as his own (perversions that were already at the time deemed unacceptable) by aiming to undermine all truth/morality as supposed constructs designed to oppress the individual.
And his philosophies and those philosophies he influenced continue to have consequences in the present time that are often negative in their outcomes. One could look therefore to the foundational aims of the thought to understand why that might be.
An example would be how critical race theory is playing out now in the US in the form of neo-racism, re-segregation, emphasising difference above co -operation and innate goodness of people, and so on. Leading to things like CNN describing Mohammed Anwar's death as an "accident" to use a current example. Or when that Islamist terrorist died and was called a religious scholar. Manipulation of language, history, truth, until everything is identity politics.

Also not all modern philosphers are or were paedophiles. It is an unusually disgusting fault. It involved acts of violence committed up close - it is not confined to brutish thoughts. It was not a custom in the time he raped children that others commonly also raped children. It is one of the reasons I find him similar to Crowley. If one reads Crowleys philosophy, which the gods forgive me I have, it is also a convoluted system of thought to try and contextualise his own sadistic nature. And I know quite a few who flocked to Crowley in their time, the idea of (supposedly)no repression, no law or truth above ones own self interest, is very attractive to many.

That is not to excuse slavery (the example given) - at all! - but it is to say that Foucault's evil acts were singularly evil and notably unacceptable even at the time of commission. That he was simultaneously evolving modes of thought that would hope to excuse himself of evil is intimately connected to his philosophy. It is justifiable to interrogate his philosophy based on its motivation. In my opinion.

jam_mac_jam

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One would have to take into account that his teachings sought specifically to excuse perversions such as his own (perversions that were already at the time deemed unacceptable) by aiming to undermine all truth/morality as supposed constructs designed to oppress the individual.
And his philosophies and those philosophies he influenced continue to have consequences in the present time that are often negative in their outcomes. One could look therefore to the foundational aims of the thought to understand why that might be.
An example would be how critical race theory is playing out now in the US in the form of neo-racism, re-segregation, emphasising difference above co -operation and innate goodness of people, and so on. Leading to things like CNN describing Mohammed Anwar's death as an "accident" to use a current example. Or when that Islamist terrorist died and was called a religious scholar. Manipulation of language, history, truth, until everything is identity politics.

Also not all modern philosphers are or were paedophiles. It is an unusually disgusting fault. It involved acts of violence committed up close - it is not confined to brutish thoughts. It was not a custom in the time he raped children that others commonly also raped children. It is one of the reasons I find him similar to Crowley. If one reads Crowleys philosophy, which the gods forgive me I have, it is also a convoluted system of thought to try and contextualise his own sadistic nature. And I know quite a few who flocked to Crowley in their time, the idea of (supposedly)no repression, no law or truth above ones own self interest, is very attractive to many.

That is not to excuse slavery (the example given) - at all! - but it is to say that Foucault's evil acts were singularly evil and notably unacceptable even at the time of commission. That he was simultaneously evolving modes of thought that would hope to excuse himself of evil is intimately connected to his philosophy. It is justifiable to interrogate his philosophy based on its motivation. In my opinion.

Yeah, I do take your point. And it is probably much more important in the case of a philosopher then a fiction writer for example and probably influenced his philosophical analysis.