3 ms·
> Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing. Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently
by dejb 17y ago
> Foucault argued that the very act of being watched was dehumanizing.
Was any data involved in his 'studies'? Was 'dehumanising' somehow defined independently? I suspect his arguments are more philosophical musing relying on circular logic, unstated assumptions and social norms, rather like pretty much everything I seem to read from Schneier. I'm sure they sound rather clever but do they really amount to much more than a circle jerk?
One could just as easily argue that 'need for privacy' is just a learned social construct.
- maudineormsby 17y agoYes, there was data involved in his studies. It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge - to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it.
- dejb 17y ago> It sounds like you don't value philosophical knowledge I value knowledge based on data and where that is not available, philosophical reasoning. I see 'philosophical knowledge' as somewhat of a contradiction in terms. However I don't see how there can be a point in trying to demonstrate that something is 'dehumanizing' without even properly defining what the term means. It seems to be a recipe for pages of word games rather than any useful philosophical reasoning. > to that end I won't endeavor to persuade you of it's merit. I would advise you to read his work before you criticize it. Could you at least provide the name of work that the quote comes from? Despite my pessimism I'm prepared to at least look at some of his work.
- maudineormsby 17y agoI would look at "Discipline and Punish" and "The History of Sexuality".