4 ms·

There are some interesting ideas buried in his writing (panopticon) but Foucault's ideas aren't consistent and it isn't even clear that he takes them seriously

There are some interesting ideas buried in his writing (panopticon) but Foucault's ideas aren't consistent and it isn't even clear that he takes them seriously himself. Discipline & Punish is also pretty elevated nonsense. The book makes sense as a history of penal reform, and Foucault is right to point out that changes often served to better punish prisoners rather than reform them as the rhetoric of the day demanded. But pointing out public hypocrisy is hardly a sophisticated observation for a historian to make. And it is a weak base from which to launch the sweeping attack Foucault attempts on the idea that morality matters, or to insist that man's "soul" is nothing more than his position in power networks or that "power" itself is "knowledge" (not vice versa). In order to support these points, Foucault is dishonest on so many basic historical points that it calls the honesty of his actual historical research into question. I have a ton of underlined passages in my copy of D&P which I made with increasing frequency as his claims started to contradict each other. In the interest of just picking one, look at Foucault's insistence that democratization had absolutely nothing to do with efforts to remove the death penalty. Really? And Foucault "proves" his opinion not by citing a single document but rather by simply stating his opinion that "executions did not, in fact, frighten the people." Well which is it? Are we truly to believe that the horrific demonstrations of torture which Foucault spends entire chapters chronicling (salaciously, like pornography) did not frighten anyone? Why if so does he describe them in such detailed fashion? And doesn't his own claim about the ineffectiveness of the punishment now contradict his earlier statements about the nature of knowledge, to say nothing of his earlier chapters which actually documented how people were, in practice, quite terrorized. A lot of the dishonesty slides by in the sheer minutiae of death. And it all gives the impression that Foucault must be right, if only because he is able to a picture of humanity that would repulse most honest people and do so unflinchingly (the virtue of facing unpleasant truths!). But at a certain point, the discerning reader recognizes his sophistry for what it is and stops trying to make sense of it all. I'd encourage anyone on HN to go directly to Plato if they want real philosophy, or at least jump back to Nietzsche (Schopenhauer as Educator) if they want an entertaining and tongue-in-cheek iconoclast whose ideas merit real thought.

Crito 11y ago
My favourite account of Plato involves one of his alleged interactions with Diogenes. As told by wikipedia: > "When Plato gave Socrates' definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man." After this incident, "with broad flat nails" was added to Plato's definition."
- trevelyan 11y ago
  That's a great story. Crito is my favorite of the dialogues as well. Too bad I can only upvote you once.
thwest 11y ago
> Foucault "proves" his opinion not by citing a single document but rather by simply stating his opinion that "executions did not, in fact, frighten the people." That quote is the concluding sentence of a paragraph which cites at least three documents: * Argenson, 241 * Hardy IV, 56 * Richet, 118-19 Does your copy have the parenthetical citations removed?
- trevelyan 11y ago
  None of those references are relevant to the quote in question, which attributes very specific and cynical beliefs to 19th penal reformers in ways which explicitly conflict with their own writings.
  - thwest 11y ago
    Do you care to cite those conflicts? Are 18th century reformers beyond a mote of cynicism? That sentence isn't claiming to describe the entire world view of the reformers, but to specifically note that they would have been aware of the number of examples where the masses were not deterred by the spectacle of executions. (You seem to take offense with specificity in a claim?) It is possible to declare the system of executions a travesty, while also observing that the lower classes are willing to phsyically intervene in them. Perhaps it is even possible that the reformers were made aware of the injustices by the lack of respect the lower classes demonstrated for them. Perhaps a reformer with the goal of abolishing executions would pen a treatise that was justified in the moral terms of the ruling class, rather than based on the emotional state of the working class. One would look to address your audience after all. I'm not familiar with the cited reformers you claim are conflicting but it sounds more like aristocracy convincing aristocracy, rather than an aristocrat attempting to sway the masses with pamphlets. I question whether you read this text in good faith, or are simply searching for bits you can pick out to summarize on a message board and construe as contradictions.

Crito 11y ago

My favourite account of Plato involves one of his alleged interactions with Diogenes. As told by wikipedia: > "When Plato gave Socrates' definition of man as "featherless bipeds" and was much praised for the definition, Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man." After this incident, "with broad flat nails" was added to Plato's definition."

trevelyan 11y ago
That's a great story. Crito is my favorite of the dialogues as well. Too bad I can only upvote you once.

thwest 11y ago

> Foucault "proves" his opinion not by citing a single document but rather by simply stating his opinion that "executions did not, in fact, frighten the people." That quote is the concluding sentence of a paragraph which cites at least three documents: * Argenson, 241 * Hardy IV, 56 * Richet, 118-19 Does your copy have the parenthetical citations removed?

trevelyan 11y ago
None of those references are relevant to the quote in question, which attributes very specific and cynical beliefs to 19th penal reformers in ways which explicitly conflict with their own writings.
- thwest 11y ago
  Do you care to cite those conflicts? Are 18th century reformers beyond a mote of cynicism? That sentence isn't claiming to describe the entire world view of the reformers, but to specifically note that they would have been aware of the number of examples where the masses were not deterred by the spectacle of executions. (You seem to take offense with specificity in a claim?) It is possible to declare the system of executions a travesty, while also observing that the lower classes are willing to phsyically intervene in them. Perhaps it is even possible that the reformers were made aware of the injustices by the lack of respect the lower classes demonstrated for them. Perhaps a reformer with the goal of abolishing executions would pen a treatise that was justified in the moral terms of the ruling class, rather than based on the emotional state of the working class. One would look to address your audience after all. I'm not familiar with the cited reformers you claim are conflicting but it sounds more like aristocracy convincing aristocracy, rather than an aristocrat attempting to sway the masses with pamphlets. I question whether you read this text in good faith, or are simply searching for bits you can pick out to summarize on a message board and construe as contradictions.