Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Fucking awesome yeah?
I was a bit disappointed by The Will To Knowledge. Great central argument scuppered somewhat by a poor cool anecdotes about mentally retarded peasants getting handjobs from children to lengthy meditations ratio.
foucault has a sense of humour, yeah!
There's not enough of them! They are >>>>>> lengthy meditations!
I think Foucault should have done a Bumper Book of Cool Facts before he died for the benefit of casual readers.
Not that reading him go on and on about the "hysterization of woman's bodies" isn't also pretty rad.
I'll grant you that his writing's compelling but that's as far as it goes. Yes, he constructs some interesting analogies - but novelists can do that too. As a philosopher / theorist he's poor by any standards. He fails to provide evidence for the vast majority of his historical claims and his "arguments" are at best ambiguous, at worst non-existent.
Emperor's New Clothes philosophy at its worst for me.
I found his writing to be painfully impenetrable at times, but his ideas to be fascinating and original.
I was a history students, and learned quickly that you never need to read the middle of books - the first and last chapters will do. So in the months leading up to my finals I was like, "why is it that I can't understand Discipline and Punish?" and then the week before I read the middle, and it all fell into place. *A truly life-changing experience*
well done youve read a philsophers work. you are now officially a student!
at least say what you like about him or something!
I like his sense of humour, massive scope of his work and find his arguments compelling by observing the world around me, rather than being tied down in lots and lots of theorising.
i just thought if you are going to start a thread on this sort of thing, you would be best to actually have something to say, otherwise it just looks like intellectual posing (again, not saying that was the case,but it can look like that)
i like all the cool theorists from the past few decades. Zizek and Foucault are genuinely fun i fink
his funny little glasses.
combining to create some bizarre retelling of 'allo 'allo.
He ain't that good. Whilst one can make assertions about my own intelligence in lieu of my next comment - I find him largely difficult to understand. Mainly because he is very difficult to read. I tend to find this is because he finds it easier to write in excessively complex clauses rather than make a coherent point. A classic example of a philosopher who wrote for the academy rather than for the people...
Plus a lot of people point to his significance in the overstated evidence that "he is one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th Century". Yeah true but if there'd been no Foucault there'd have been no Judith Butler, and we all know how much better the world would be if SHE wasn't around...
I'm sharing the Barthes love from Wishpig though. What a man.