Our website: www.justandsinner.org Patreon: / justandsinner This video is part of the Makers of the Modern World series in which I discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault.
As someone who writes within the field of intellectual history, I can confirm that the damage Foucault has caused has made the field almost entirely worthless.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Do you post any content? I abhor extreme Leftist culture and am always looking for solid intellectual material criticizing and exposing this stuff. Thanks for your comment.
It would hurt if you could lay out what this damage entails? I studied Foucault and if we had stick to what he actually said (not what other people thought he was getting at or strawmanning him, such as radical feminists and post-colonialists), this world and our societies would be a bit better.
I disagree. Foucault wasn't trying to do history. He borrows some tools from historians, but his project was not purely forensic. He takes great pains to express this in all his work. The best term he could develop for his efforts was 'archeology.' Archeology is sort of historical, but not completely. And, a lack of understanding Foucault's project has led many down the woke path. Foucault would hate them.
Thank you very much! I really enjoyed this, or at least: I did enjoy it as much as you possibly can when the lecture is about someone like Foucault. It‘s a difficult topic to present, and I think you did very well. Other comments who criticize your tone or your snide remarks, I wouldn‘t take that serious. I think this is what made the lecture quite enjoyable, and I found what you said interesting, and on the whole very helpful. Furthermore: I recently saw you in your discussion with Vervaeke on PVK‘s channel, and I found your conversation very enjoyable! It was really visible that you brought a new perspective before Vervaeke, and he seemed to have enjoyed your conversation very much. It was a delight to see you both.
So, I just understood that growing up in “classic” USSR Marxism all the wester developments of it didn’t actually entered or influenced USSR, so even though the foundation of USSR and western communism was the same after the fall of communism in the Eastern Europe all the western/modern developments in marxism looked alien and strange. And another thing that seems obvious about many people like Foucault that they look at life (history is an example of it) in simplified or simplistic way. Again and again they say that their point of view is the only right way to look at life and interpret history (which is obviously wrong).
Dr Cooper, this is a neat and tidy summary of Foucault. I hope that in making this series of videos on post modern intellectuals, you'll continue covering classical conservative figures such as Edmund Burke who may propose a way out of this post modern madness we see today.
Fantastic series! As a Brazilian, I think it relevant to mention that Foucault's influence on the non-Anglosphere West is far more open and powerful... Foucault is THE philosopher of Latin America. 😮💨
One problem in modern and post modern and post post modern... thinking is the idea of objective truth. As a thinker or researcher you have to distance yourself as much as possible from the subject matter in order to see the object of study as it "is". Having feelings/opinions/suppositions about the object of study is a problem. As a serious researcher you may reveal some of these in the study, but you can never reveal everything. And often times you don't want to reveal some things. What you don't want to reveal can easily become the actual guiding force of your line of study, whether you are aware of it or not. Whether objectivity is possible at all and to what degree has been discussed in philosophy and in psychology, but not enough, I think. A truly new paradigm would be to acknowledge the influence of subjectivity in science. I don't mean embracing the contemporary idea of all views being equal in value. Instead there should be a balanced ground of subject and object.
True. You must make the attempt, but nobody can be completely objective. This is why scientists use publications and peer-review. Hopefully other people in the same field will try to replicate the results, finding out your problems in the process. (Or at least making _different_ mistakes!)
Mr. Pastor. Though I am not impressed by any of your ideas. I still admire your scholarship and a genuine effort to oppose ideas by counter ideas, though i am not sure it is gonna work. But still, i have suggestions that I feel can improve your videos. 1) You still focus on character flaws of thinkers. It will make your students/viewers resort to ad hominem. Which I am sure you know don't work as counter arguments and nor as genuine persuasion tactic. 2) You mix subtle attempts to strawman the thinker and his ideas. Which I think is counter productive, because then your viewer will underestimate those ideas, because you presented them as untenable and weak. 3) You should start with presenting the thinker's ideas in strongest possible rendition and then at the end you can add your critique. Though I am not sure you will really have some some. Finally, I would like to add that the ideas of foucault are not new. The idea that self is a social construct is a central theme in bhudhism, Hinduism and daoism. And the idea that there is no objective truth or there is no accessible objective truth goes back to cynics, sophists and skeptics of almost all civilizations. The age of enlightenment started with questioning "dogmas" and foucault took the enlightenment process to its logical end.
Were finally here! And yes, it's important to deconstruct and question the existing structures and certainly not deny their existence... Status Quo Shills should not be tolerated!
Great overview. You should discuss Johannes Fabian "Time and the Other" I think it gives a bit more context to Foucault and the 'new' methods of history that you briefly touch on. Right on the head with the Destructive tendency, though I think its too soon to argue that Foucault has done irreparable damage to the field of history. He is correct about the destructive tendency of Western history. He perhaps has destroyed the unquestioned continuity of the Western philosophical base. And Western philosophy has destroyed itself even without people like Foucault. Either way, glad I found this 🙏🏾 Interesting to hear Foucault from a conservative POV. Though I think some of the points his work was trying to make were missed. Will be looking at your other videos on Western theology 🙏🏾 Thanks
While the ground of each self is certainly ultimately created by God, I think it's certainly true that most of what we think of as our selves, is created, and indeed consists of our relationships and interactionswith each other. But instead of power, the determinative ingredient and "underlying structure" is gift. Only if one doesn't believe in gift, does it tend to look like a power structure, becausewhat else could it ve, if gift and thus love is impossible. But the trick here is that Focault gets so much right, but then just smuggles in the power thing, which is just his assertion that doesn't follow. It's his faith, it's what he sees everywhere, what he chooses to see everywhere, which becomes his lamp.
In Greece, it was absolutely not a general belief that child abuse was normal. There are very few examples of relationships between adults and children that were sexual, and it was considered immoral to a great degree. What happens is that people think pederasty meant the same back then, when in actuality that was a pure mentor/protoge relationship. It could of course degenerate into sexual predation, but that was seen as a horrible, destructive betrayal of the trust of the child and its parents.
Not really. St. Paul's admonition of arsenokoites (boybedder) and the Didache's paidophthoreseis (child corruptor) are both referring to the still-present pederasty as a sexual exploitation relationship between a boy and a man.
I totally disagree about your criticical analysis about Foucault focusing on his childhood and that he was gay. At that time gays were outsiders, and many centuries before that. Look at 2023 and prejudices still exist. We all are only human beings Many have had their on personal journeys.( No, child abuse.) But why does it happen still in all walks of life? (Wealthy and poor.) Thus far, I believe Foucault had many interesting ideas. Especially in why shadow governments went underground for all not to see. Futhernore, do you remember Jeffrey Epstein, and now what Whitney Webb's books , an American journalist that lives in Argentina has connected with leading powers of the elites? Name all those names where their hypocritical powers of greed. There is a long list of elites of me first, screw you and the abuse of women and some men? How about Weinstein in HOOLYWIRED? That had been going on since Hollywood began. Churches also included in sexual abuse and not just in the Catholic Church. It is in most churches, neighbors, parents, teachers, college football coaches such as Penn State. OLYMPIC coaches, Washington DC, preachers. Foucault understood what many lies were hidden, because it burned in him. Who are we to judge? When one knows , one doesn't know and when one doesn't know then and only then one may. A truth is a principle, when one has that, one has character, and when one has that then and only then may one extend it. What is intelligence? What is thought? What is the space between thought where there is silence, in the now? Knowledge is book knowledge and therefore is important. True intelligence is when one understands "I am the world and the world is me." All the emotions of jealousy, fears, love and hate. In the silence of the mind, there is that space where true intelligence lives. Am I a warm loving human being that has compassion and love for all my brothers and sisters? We are now walking in seas of mass insanity, all societies are being affected by wars for profits, land and gold even now. Foucault wins!!!!! Even with his own personal demons.
I think delving into his personal sex life was unnecessary. It puts an edge on the entrie exercise which is unnecessary and even damaging to the highly puritanistic audiences of Northamerica. Homosexuality is quite normal. That being said, from my personal, anarcho-eco-feminist perspective, pediphelia is a big problem. Sadly, I think less of him now.
It’s hilarious to see how a conservative attitude apparently renders people completely unable to understand even the very basics of Foucault’s writings.
Could you please give some examples of what he gets wrong? I am genuinely trying to learn and don’t want my ideas about Foucault be distorted by this guys conservatism
"An obsession with power???" Could it just be that FINALLY the POWERLESS are finding their VOICE and it is no longer possible to censor their opinions to create a 'victim's history?' Of COURSE the POWERFUL would construe questions about structure as an 'obsession', in order to a priori legitimise their control of the discourse.
Not everyone believes that power is upstream of reality, Fascists like Nitzche and Socialists do. The world is created by and influenced by God and spiritual conflict, human power is not the most important thing. Take the family, the Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and the Bible is independent of human power, Christ was executed by the agent of Ceaser, Christianity was persecuted by the state. In time the Catholics, Orthodox and, later, Protestants, used Christianity to justify useing political power, but niether Jesus nor the early congregation had anything to do with politics. Rather, Jesus said his kingdom was no part of the world.
You seem so disapproving of Foucault - who he was, his ideas, his skills and talent. In your hands you devalue one of the finest minds; you reduce and dismiss. It certainly doesn’t interest you.
what did you expect??????? glowing praise?????? wherefore???? you can be intelligent and still say stupid things. in fact everyone in the world could praise you and you could still be completely wrong. being celebrated and intelligent =/ correct or true or admirable. doesn't interest dr cooper???? doesn't interest him???? he spent 1 hour talking about the man. did you listen to this podcast with the volume off???
@@HenryLeslieGraham I think he means that Cooper was dismissive without any real reason. He treated the ideas as just opinions. Or worse, he used fallacies such as attacking Foucaults character instead of his ideas. Giving an overview and description is fine, but he constantly implying things in a negative way.
@@kulturkriget foucault destroys objectivity and our ability to talk about gender in a meaningful way === internet sleuths you better talk about this in a positive way. what you call negative dr cooper calls a christian assessment. dismissive without reason???? he gave reasons throughout, you just dont like those reasons because they arent to your liking and or you agree with foucault, come on this an introduction to the man, what do you expect???. you even wish to divorce his debased behaviour from his ideas as if they had zero impact on his ideas. his ideas are a product of a dangerous and depraved mind and it is utter foolishness to act as if they dont. its not as if all foucaults bad behaviour was confined to his twilight years or was just a product of a bad tuesday. the man built his ideas within his crazy destructive worldview. would you like every philosopher to be deconstructed with oh so careful nuance???? or just the ones you like???? would you give a positive comment on a video on say Kant? or Aquinas or Occam? no doubt you or others on bread tube will be in the comments complaining about how dr cooper missed this or that fallacy or how christianity is so problematic or how aquinas hated gypsies and why didnt dr cooper mention that. i know bread tube bedfellows never have equal scales and always expect right-leaning folks to go easy on its gods and heroes and always accuse us of "not understanding his or her argument". its always the same. its as if you believe foucaults ideas are unassailable and just cannot be touched or if they were it would require a 9h+ lecture per idea. just like the antinatalists whinging on all the videos that dare criticise it and forming little cults in the comment section defending their heroes like acolytes always do. its really exhausting
![Rick Roderick on Foucault - The Disappearance of the Human [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hP79SfCfRzo/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who writes within the field of intellectual history, I can confirm that the damage Foucault has caused has made the field almost entirely worthless.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. Do you post any content? I abhor extreme Leftist culture and am always looking for solid intellectual material criticizing and exposing this stuff. Thanks for your comment.
It would hurt if you could lay out what this damage entails? I studied Foucault and if we had stick to what he actually said (not what other people thought he was getting at or strawmanning him, such as radical feminists and post-colonialists), this world and our societies would be a bit better.
I meant to say "It wouldn't hurt"....
I disagree. Foucault wasn't trying to do history. He borrows some tools from historians, but his project was not purely forensic. He takes great pains to express this in all his work. The best term he could develop for his efforts was 'archeology.' Archeology is sort of historical, but not completely. And, a lack of understanding Foucault's project has led many down the woke path. Foucault would hate them.
@@JoshA138 Exactly. Take his sexuality. He never talked about it. He wouldnt like to talk about it, since he never wanted to let it define him.
You have pretty much hit Foucault spot on in my own experience with him. Foucault is one of the many reasons I got out of the field of history.
Thank you very much! I really enjoyed this, or at least: I did enjoy it as much as you possibly can when the lecture is about someone like Foucault. It‘s a difficult topic to present, and I think you did very well. Other comments who criticize your tone or your snide remarks, I wouldn‘t take that serious. I think this is what made the lecture quite enjoyable, and I found what you said interesting, and on the whole very helpful.
Furthermore: I recently saw you in your discussion with Vervaeke on PVK‘s channel, and I found your conversation very enjoyable! It was really visible that you brought a new perspective before Vervaeke, and he seemed to have enjoyed your conversation very much. It was a delight to see you both.
Very solid Foucault summary
The main topic starts at 27:15 if you are here to learn on what Foucault said on power
yes, let's pay attention to Foucault, that will sure lead us somewhere
Fantastic breakdown
Thankfully, I studied history at a university and at a time when the focus was still on facts and on achieving as much objectivity as possible
Been waiting for a new episode!!!
So, I just understood that growing up in “classic” USSR Marxism all the wester developments of it didn’t actually entered or influenced USSR, so even though the foundation of USSR and western communism was the same after the fall of communism in the Eastern Europe all the western/modern developments in marxism looked alien and strange. And another thing that seems obvious about many people like Foucault that they look at life (history is an example of it) in simplified or simplistic way. Again and again they say that their point of view is the only right way to look at life and interpret history (which is obviously wrong).
Dr Cooper, this is a neat and tidy summary of Foucault. I hope that in making this series of videos on post modern intellectuals, you'll continue covering classical conservative figures such as Edmund Burke who may propose a way out of this post modern madness we see today.
Fantastic series! As a Brazilian, I think it relevant to mention that Foucault's influence on the non-Anglosphere West is far more open and powerful... Foucault is THE philosopher of Latin America. 😮💨
Poor latin America, if you consider that.
It came! It finally came!
Thank you dr. Cooper!
A one-hour summation of Foucault's thoughts with a lot of trivial information can definitely misrepresent Foucault.
One problem in modern and post modern and post post modern... thinking is the idea of objective truth. As a thinker or researcher you have to distance yourself as much as possible from the subject matter in order to see the object of study as it "is". Having feelings/opinions/suppositions about the object of study is a problem. As a serious researcher you may reveal some of these in the study, but you can never reveal everything. And often times you don't want to reveal some things. What you don't want to reveal can easily become the actual guiding force of your line of study, whether you are aware of it or not.
Whether objectivity is possible at all and to what degree has been discussed in philosophy and in psychology, but not enough, I think. A truly new paradigm would be to acknowledge the influence of subjectivity in science. I don't mean embracing the contemporary idea of all views being equal in value. Instead there should be a balanced ground of subject and object.
True. You must make the attempt, but nobody can be completely objective. This is why scientists use publications and peer-review. Hopefully other people in the same field will try to replicate the results, finding out your problems in the process. (Or at least making _different_ mistakes!)
You can never get out of your representation.
I think you should include Margareth Tatcher.
Mr. Pastor.
Though I am not impressed by any of your ideas. I still admire your scholarship and a genuine effort to oppose ideas by counter ideas, though i am not sure it is gonna work.
But still, i have suggestions that I feel can improve your videos.
1) You still focus on character flaws of thinkers. It will make your students/viewers resort to ad hominem. Which I am sure you know don't work as counter arguments and nor as genuine persuasion tactic.
2) You mix subtle attempts to strawman the thinker and his ideas. Which I think is counter productive, because then your viewer will underestimate those ideas, because you presented them as untenable and weak.
3) You should start with presenting the thinker's ideas in strongest possible rendition and then at the end you can add your critique. Though I am not sure you will really have some some.
Finally, I would like to add that the ideas of foucault are not new. The idea that self is a social construct is a central theme in bhudhism, Hinduism and daoism. And the idea that there is no objective truth or there is no accessible objective truth goes back to cynics, sophists and skeptics of almost all civilizations.
The age of enlightenment started with questioning "dogmas" and foucault took the enlightenment process to its logical end.
Agreed!
Were finally here!
And yes, it's important to deconstruct and question the existing structures and certainly not deny their existence...
Status Quo Shills should not be tolerated!
Definitely get on Fabian's "Time and the Other". 57:43
Great overview. You should discuss Johannes Fabian "Time and the Other" I think it gives a bit more context to Foucault and the 'new' methods of history that you briefly touch on.
Right on the head with the Destructive tendency, though I think its too soon to argue that Foucault has done irreparable damage to the field of history. He is correct about the destructive tendency of Western history. He perhaps has destroyed the unquestioned continuity of the Western philosophical base. And Western philosophy has destroyed itself even without people like Foucault.
Either way, glad I found this 🙏🏾 Interesting to hear Foucault from a conservative POV. Though I think some of the points his work was trying to make were missed. Will be looking at your other videos on Western theology 🙏🏾 Thanks
I think Foucault as more Kantian not Hegeloan.
While the ground of each self is certainly ultimately created by God, I think it's certainly true that most of what we think of as our selves, is created, and indeed consists of our relationships and interactionswith each other. But instead of power, the determinative ingredient and "underlying structure" is gift. Only if one doesn't believe in gift, does it tend to look like a power structure, becausewhat else could it ve, if gift and thus love is impossible. But the trick here is that Focault gets so much right, but then just smuggles in the power thing, which is just his assertion that doesn't follow. It's his faith, it's what he sees everywhere, what he chooses to see everywhere, which becomes his lamp.
Getting ready for the whining and complaint. Need to have coffee before i start.
Hey, but you still watched it.
@@DrJordanBCooper Not yet but maybe in an hour or two.
You quoting fucoute will be clipped out of context. Get ready for the smear
In Greece, it was absolutely not a general belief that child abuse was normal. There are very few examples of relationships between adults and children that were sexual, and it was considered immoral to a great degree. What happens is that people think pederasty meant the same back then, when in actuality that was a pure mentor/protoge relationship. It could of course degenerate into sexual predation, but that was seen as a horrible, destructive betrayal of the trust of the child and its parents.
Ancient Greek culture didn't seem to agree with itself on sexuality.
Not really. St. Paul's admonition of arsenokoites (boybedder) and the Didache's paidophthoreseis (child corruptor) are both referring to the still-present pederasty as a sexual exploitation relationship between a boy and a man.
If the early church felt it important to condemn the practice it must have been widespread enough to criticize
I totally disagree about your criticical analysis about Foucault focusing on his childhood and that he was gay.
At that time gays were outsiders, and many centuries before that.
Look at 2023 and prejudices still exist.
We all are only human beings Many have had their on personal journeys.( No, child abuse.) But why does it happen still in all walks of life?
(Wealthy and poor.)
Thus far, I believe Foucault had many interesting ideas.
Especially in why shadow governments went underground for all not to see.
Futhernore, do you remember Jeffrey Epstein, and now what Whitney Webb's books , an American journalist that lives in Argentina has connected with leading powers of the elites? Name all those names where their hypocritical powers of greed. There is a long list of elites of me first, screw you and the abuse of women and some men? How about Weinstein in HOOLYWIRED? That had been going on since Hollywood began.
Churches also included in sexual abuse and not just in the Catholic Church. It is in most churches, neighbors, parents, teachers, college football coaches such as Penn State. OLYMPIC coaches, Washington DC, preachers.
Foucault understood what many lies were hidden, because it burned in him.
Who are we to judge?
When one knows , one doesn't know and when one doesn't know then and only then one may.
A truth is a principle, when one has that, one has character, and when one has that then and only then may one extend it.
What is intelligence? What is thought? What is the space between thought where there is silence, in the now?
Knowledge is book knowledge and therefore is important.
True intelligence is when one understands "I am the world and the world is me." All the emotions of jealousy, fears, love and hate. In the silence of the mind, there is that space where true intelligence lives.
Am I a warm loving human being that has compassion and love for all my brothers and sisters?
We are now walking in seas of mass insanity, all societies are being affected by wars for profits, land and gold even now.
Foucault wins!!!!! Even with his own personal demons.
Well, that's his method of historicism, very un-Foucauldian.
Hahaha he gets visitors because of the “Dr. Jordan B. “.
OwO
Surely, a philosophy which led its inventor to self harm and attempt suicide is one which should be completely destroyed.
He was also a pedophile
I think delving into his personal sex life was unnecessary. It puts an edge on the entrie exercise which is unnecessary and even damaging to the highly puritanistic audiences of Northamerica. Homosexuality is quite normal. That being said, from my personal, anarcho-eco-feminist perspective, pediphelia is a big problem. Sadly, I think less of him now.
The king of degenerency.
The ultimate fruitcake of postmodernism.
This was disturbing..
It’s hilarious to see how a conservative attitude apparently renders people completely unable to understand even the very basics of Foucault’s writings.
Could you please give some examples of what he gets wrong? I am genuinely trying to learn and don’t want my ideas about Foucault be distorted by this guys conservatism
then just read the books
"An obsession with power???"
Could it just be that FINALLY the POWERLESS are finding their VOICE and it is no longer possible to censor their opinions to create a 'victim's history?'
Of COURSE the POWERFUL would construe questions about structure as an 'obsession', in order to a priori legitimise their control of the discourse.
Not everyone believes that power is upstream of reality, Fascists like Nitzche and Socialists do. The world is created by and influenced by God and spiritual conflict, human power is not the most important thing. Take the family, the Bible tells us what is right and wrong, and the Bible is independent of human power, Christ was executed by the agent of Ceaser, Christianity was persecuted by the state. In time the Catholics, Orthodox and, later, Protestants, used Christianity to justify useing political power, but niether Jesus nor the early congregation had anything to do with politics. Rather, Jesus said his kingdom was no part of the world.
You seem so disapproving of Foucault - who he was, his ideas, his skills and talent. In your hands you devalue one of the finest minds; you reduce and dismiss. It certainly doesn’t interest you.
Your last sentence would have been sufficient.
shocking :D
what did you expect??????? glowing praise?????? wherefore???? you can be intelligent and still say stupid things. in fact everyone in the world could praise you and you could still be completely wrong. being celebrated and intelligent =/ correct or true or admirable. doesn't interest dr cooper???? doesn't interest him???? he spent 1 hour talking about the man. did you listen to this podcast with the volume off???
@@HenryLeslieGraham I think he means that Cooper was dismissive without any real reason. He treated the ideas as just opinions. Or worse, he used fallacies such as attacking Foucaults character instead of his ideas.
Giving an overview and description is fine, but he constantly implying things in a negative way.
@@kulturkriget foucault destroys objectivity and our ability to talk about gender in a meaningful way === internet sleuths you better talk about this in a positive way. what you call negative dr cooper calls a christian assessment. dismissive without reason???? he gave reasons throughout, you just dont like those reasons because they arent to your liking and or you agree with foucault, come on this an introduction to the man, what do you expect???. you even wish to divorce his debased behaviour from his ideas as if they had zero impact on his ideas. his ideas are a product of a dangerous and depraved mind and it is utter foolishness to act as if they dont. its not as if all foucaults bad behaviour was confined to his twilight years or was just a product of a bad tuesday. the man built his ideas within his crazy destructive worldview. would you like every philosopher to be deconstructed with oh so careful nuance???? or just the ones you like???? would you give a positive comment on a video on say Kant? or Aquinas or Occam? no doubt you or others on bread tube will be in the comments complaining about how dr cooper missed this or that fallacy or how christianity is so problematic or how aquinas hated gypsies and why didnt dr cooper mention that. i know bread tube bedfellows never have equal scales and always expect right-leaning folks to go easy on its gods and heroes and always accuse us of "not understanding his or her argument". its always the same. its as if you believe foucaults ideas are unassailable and just cannot be touched or if they were it would require a 9h+ lecture per idea. just like the antinatalists whinging on all the videos that dare criticise it and forming little cults in the comment section defending their heroes like acolytes always do. its really exhausting