You Think You Took The Red Pill?

if he was capable of putting his arguments in clear and concise ways and was fair when dealing with his antitheses i'd read more of him

Uncle Fester?

>still doesn't affect whether he was wrong or right. it's not even the case if he was right, lol. he was philosopher

A good life comes from virtue. He died an AIDS faggot.

>Behind every discourse there is somebody who wants to get into the position of power
>But then if you say so, does it mean that you want power too?
>N-no of course not! You're just a nazi and authoritarian bigot!!!!11

i heard this was the guy that destroyed the left wing with sexual liberation
just a stooge of the elites desu.

Don't be a faggot, this fag is the ultimate red pill, he pretty btfo the same before btfo was even invented.

Why would I read a marxist (literal) faggot?

Foucault was one of the first to start the whole pozzing meme.

If he had been able to write sentences written for real human beans, instead of enraged Lesbians who channel their general dissatisfaction in life into the ideology of feminism and gender """studies"""", then I might have some respect for him.

But alas, this bugchaser, like most, did not live long enough to see his hypothetical grandchildren grow up.

Also he was fucking moron:

" Around this time of this picture I was warning Foucault about Aids. When I first told him about the disease he said: “Oh that's perfect Edmund: you American puritans, you’re always inventing diseases. And one that singles out blacks, drug users and gays – how perfect!” Gay rights had been so hard to fight for that Aids felt like a real reversal. It just seemed to be too perfect for him to believe in it. I tried to insist that it was real despite its ideological aspects."

>AIDS is an ideological construct
>Get HIV from assfucking
>Die of AIDS
>Be a shitty philosopher called phonetically Fuckall

Pick all four

Yeah, autospell. I stand by my autospell though. I read discipline and punish, so fuck you. Book blew my mind.

I read some interesting article about the LGBT movement in the 1980s. One of the reasons why so many gays got infected with HIV is that the LGBT movement fought tooth and nail against the alleged "conspiracy theory" of AIDS which was just, in their opinion, a way for racist homophobic republicans to oppress them into not having promiscuous sex. This had a really bad effect on AIDS research and caused it to actually stall for a couple of years.

It's only in the early 90s, when nearly half of San Francisco's homosexual population had died, that they switched tunes. Then they claimed. They then started claiming that the reason why AIDS research wasn't advancing was because AIDS mostly affected gays and the racist homophobes of the pharma industry didn't care about them...

You've read no Foucault at all. Maybe a primer, but you're too much of an ideologue to have read anything. Well done.

They should have pushed proAIDS propaganda. Dumbasses.

Identity politics are nothing compared to his early work on mental illness, the army and social organisation. The sjws only use his later work because he was an early queer theorist. Dude has the social order nailed.

To form an opinion, you mook.

He was redpilled about society.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
>They believed that the penal system was replacing the punishment of criminal acts by the creation of the figure of the individual dangerous to society (regardless of any actual crime), and predicted that a "society of dangers" would come. They also have defined the idea of legal consent as a contractual notion and a ‘trap’, since "no one makes a contract before making love".

I have read Foucault, and he simply cannot write well. It's a convoluted mess of Newspeak, like all Post-War leftist writers tend to write.

The French once were lauded for their clarity in writing, but with the coming of Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and all the other garbage-tier phony philosophers, this means nothing anymore.

The best thing you can read about them is Roger Scruton's Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands.

Don't be mad. Post structuralist writing can be annoying but only because it expects you to have a decent knowledge of current philosophical thought. It's only cunty if you shy away from that. And that scrutons book is dogshit. If that's your level of philosophy then carry on, fella.

>And that scrutons book is dogshit.
That's some pretty advanced philosophical argumentation.

I think you're being way too broad. Look up schizoanalysis. Its almost a description of the success of Cred Forums.

I know, but it bunches up some very red pilled writers with some others who are just having fun.

Foucault is Red Pilled as fuck. Just because he was entrenched with other post structuralist writers doesn't dismiss his work.

I haven't read Scruton's book, but from what I heard he does a pretty good job at dissecting his opposition.

Dissecting an argument is easy, essential even, if you want to break up radical ideas. Arguments about left or right fail to matter when essential truths about societal organisation are laid bare.

Read both, but understand what pill it is you swallow.

What are generally some of his most important and/or interesting and/or controversial claims, redpills?

oh jeeze
you're so gay

Read Camille Paglia's "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders". Then we'll talk. She takes a hammer at the poststructuralists and postmodernists, including Foucault, -and how they've infested the humanities. I'd say social sciences as well.
Redpilled? What are you talking about? So embarrassing to see people on Cred Forums impressed with Foucault. It's bluer than a skittle's balls after selling his last goat.

>I'm a wise philosopher
>I'm going to go to bathhouses and take hundreds of dicks in my ass until I die of AIDS
>you can't call me a faggot because labels are a language prison that we build to control others

Foucault, gentlemen.

>"We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. (...) Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions."

>"The legislator will not justify the measures that he is proposing by saying: the universal decency of mankind must be defended. What he will say is: there are people for whom others' sexuality may become a permanent danger".

Who cares? This also subverts identity politics. His philosophy is useful, it can be useful for rightists and libertarians as well.

this nigga looks woke as fuck..

Foucault and Baudrillard aren't garbage-tier or phony. I haven't read the others.

Derrida is also good.

I'm biased because my undergrad dissertation was on postmodernist historiography, but if you can't be bothered with the deconstructionism and poststructuralism by Derrida, Foucalt, et al., then just read more contemporary postmodernist authors who delve into those. For historiography, specifically, the following write fairly nicely for a wide audience about these concepts:

>Hayden White
>Richard Rorty
>Keith Jenkins
>Alun Munslow
>Frank Ankersmit

>being a modernist and structuralist is redpilled
>missing the point entirely

Discipline and Punish was great. I haven't read or watched the Foucault-Hayek debate in a long while.

>didn't say poststructuralism bad, structuralism good.
>said basic poststructuralist assumptions are well challenged by Paglia.
>they dumb
>undergraduate dissertation
>ok then.

Literally a bugchaser who partly recanted once he was receiving treatment in the hospital he had attacked as an illustration of civilization being bad.

Shallow leftists pseudo intellectuals give him a bad name just life they do to the entire Frankfurt school.

The Fagcault pill:
>POZ loads of HIV your ass whilst being tied up and whipped in a homosexual S&M orgy

Probably his AIDS (which he died from)

lmao who is that old egghead?

"If I say it then it's true" sums up this guy's entire philosophy. It's the Democrat's playbook, and if it wasn't so Stalinesque Dilbertman would agree with it.

>basic poststructuralist assumptions
>well challenged
ebic

Please tell me more about how a structuralist academic you like has argued well against principles of poststructuralism just because she rants about the state of the humanities like a literal autist.

>dude I hate the french philosophers lmao
>dude humanities are being corrupted by postmodernism lmao

It makes no sense outside of specific areas of academia, and whining about the state of the social sciences and humanities and blaming it on poststructuralist thought is utterly cretinous.

Also, arguing that knowledge cannot objectively derive from phenomenology or structure does no harm whatsoever to the humanities. Postmodernism isn't a destructive discourse, it's a re-evaluation of what humanities are for and how they benefit and are interacted with by society. It's a challenge and it's essentially almost by definition not meant to be taken seriously.

How anyone can defend structuralism when the writings of absolute apes like Althusser and Engels still exist is beyond me. Any brand of structuralism is no different fundamentally, it's just different methodologies and ideologies.

Michael Fuko

It's clear the book is shit when there's a pedantic pretentious idiot praising it. Sage

lol ewww sic semper faggots

>French intellectual

>a French faggot that exclusively sucked Arab dick is redpilled

Nope.

This. Better luck next time OP

brutal lol

>Discipline and Punish was great
I thought it was mindnumbingly repetitive.

we've already read Sokal and Bricmont.
/lefty/pol pls go away

>get an article published in a single journal
>haha I told you so all of postmodern philosophy is a joke!

Postmodernism is the Family Guy of philosophy. Instead of offering relevant content, it simply offers a bunch of smarmy references to other philosophy. Even its name is a reference to modernism, and implies a critical position without offering one. It turned out the only difference between modernism and postmodernism is in postmodernism you can be paid to write incoherent books and call them "critical theory". Only teenage girls still care about these losers.

what the fuck is this cunt even saying

Basically, by calling certain demographics more vulnerable to sexual abuse and creating harsher laws meant to protect them, you are creating a society where certain demographics (males) are considered dangerous by default, when around women/children. This isn't good for society, he calls it a "phantom": compare this to the rape-culture bullshit from feminists, and the scare that all men are potential child rapists.

Fuck off shill.

Foucault was a gay PEDO and his '''''''''philosophy '''''''' is the base of postmodernshits and feminism

>redpill

...

A faggot who fucked a hundred guys in bath houses and end up with AIDS? I don't think so.

you can't form views or opinions without reading someone else's. you're the literal cucked slave

Kek

I really hate this faggot and all the other """""French"""""" philosophers like Marcuse and Sartre

Why read that trash when you have things like Marcus Aurelius and Julius Evola and shit?

What wrong with being a gay pedo?

I read an interesting article or something by him, I think, where he discussed Catholic confession -- a surprisingly positive take on the practice, if memory serves. He was raised Catholic, if I'm not mistaken.

And answering my own earlier question which none of you shitheels was kind enough to answer:

>In November 1975, Foucault, who was initiated to psychedelics in Berkeley, spoke nostalgically to [Claude] Mauriac of “an unforgettable evening on LSD, in carefully prepared doses, in the desert night, with delicious music, nice people, and some chartreuse.”
>Foucault described LSD as a shortcut between and beyond the categories of illusion and reality, the false and the true.
>It induced an accelerated thinking that “no sooner eliminates the supremacy of categories than it tears away the ground of its indifference and disintegrates the gloomy dumbshow of stupidity” to the point at which he encounters a “univocal and acategorical mass” that is not only “variegated, mobile, asymmetrical, decentered, spiraloid, and reverberating, but causes it to rise, at each instant, as a swarming of phantasm-events.”
>The processes speed up: structures are displayed, shattered, and surpassed in swift succession, and “as it is freed from its catatonic chrysalis, thought invariably contemplates this indefinite equivalence transformed into an acute event and a sumptuous, appareled repetition.”

So there's that.