3 ms·

I have read both, and Foucault is 100x the charlatan than diamond is. Foucault is responsible for significant amounts of fashionable nonsense within the academy

I have read both, and Foucault is 100x the charlatan than diamond is. Foucault is responsible for significant amounts of fashionable nonsense within the academy.

defrost 3y ago
C'mon now, he was pretty spot on about that pendulum ... /jk
- chongli 3y ago
  Different Foucault!
  - defrost 3y ago
    Not the one that wrote The Name of the Rose then? Damn, who'd have thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum
Radim 3y ago
To paraphrase Roosevelt: "He may be a charlatan, but he's OUR charlatan!"
DiscourseFan 3y ago
>fashionable nonsense If you believe that critiquing the prison-industrial complex is fashionable non-sense, then I think I know where you lie politically.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  I (unfortunately) read most of his works alongside a lot of the post-modernist cannon while participating in speech and debate. While he may give some interesting speculative reasoning about the nature of state power, he's ultimately fashionable nonsense. Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, and Derrida are The 4 horsemen of the epistemological apocalypse.
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    >Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, and Derrida are The 4 horsemen of the epistemological apocalypse. We should probably just go back to Rhene Thom and Morphogenesis, except that even that theory has lost face. A hundred years of denying the importance of Hegel's Logic has led to a significant loss in the progress of human civilization.
throw4847285 3y ago
A Kant scholar once told me that the difference between Kant and Hume is that Kant described simple ideas complexly and Hume described complex ideas simply. To apply that to Foucault and and Diamond, Foucault explored complex ideas obtusely and Diamond explores dumb ideas simply. Sure, the academy has a bias towards complexity. It is slightly self-justifying. But let's not be black and white thinkers and assume that the opposite is true, and that airport reading by somebody with no historical credentials must be some secret truth the academy doesn't want you to now. It might just be popular bunk.

I have read both, and Foucault is 100x the charlatan than diamond is. Foucault is responsible for significant amounts of fashionable nonsense within the academy.

defrost 3y ago

C'mon now, he was pretty spot on about that pendulum ... /jk

chongli 3y ago
Different Foucault!
- defrost 3y ago
  Not the one that wrote The Name of the Rose then? Damn, who'd have thought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault%27s_Pendulum

Radim 3y ago

To paraphrase Roosevelt: "He may be a charlatan, but he's OUR charlatan!"

DiscourseFan 3y ago

>fashionable nonsense If you believe that critiquing the prison-industrial complex is fashionable non-sense, then I think I know where you lie politically.

Der_Einzige 3y ago
I (unfortunately) read most of his works alongside a lot of the post-modernist cannon while participating in speech and debate. While he may give some interesting speculative reasoning about the nature of state power, he's ultimately fashionable nonsense. Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, and Derrida are The 4 horsemen of the epistemological apocalypse.
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  >Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, and Derrida are The 4 horsemen of the epistemological apocalypse. We should probably just go back to Rhene Thom and Morphogenesis, except that even that theory has lost face. A hundred years of denying the importance of Hegel's Logic has led to a significant loss in the progress of human civilization.

throw4847285 3y ago

A Kant scholar once told me that the difference between Kant and Hume is that Kant described simple ideas complexly and Hume described complex ideas simply. To apply that to Foucault and and Diamond, Foucault explored complex ideas obtusely and Diamond explores dumb ideas simply. Sure, the academy has a bias towards complexity. It is slightly self-justifying. But let's not be black and white thinkers and assume that the opposite is true, and that airport reading by somebody with no historical credentials must be some secret truth the academy doesn't want you to now. It might just be popular bunk.