Objectification of man and deconstruction of objective knowledge. When person might be so immoral to use own institutional power for personal benefits. When everyone is corrupt.
@@andreyrussian2480but it could be the opposite, as well, meaning liberating. I taught my young kids a collection of emotive language, so they can express how they feel (to the degree it maps on, etc.). This way, the language is there to circumvent frustration/confusion when trying to communicate with me. Or, think of a person suffering from an affliction. To name it is to begin to fix it.
I took a few of your classes over Zoom back in the 2020-2021 school year. Yours were my favourites, and I wish I got the chance to sit in a real classroom with you!
principalities and powers. the thing about guys like fookoh and derrida is that there is no doubt they are intelligent and express concepts that are valid and deep in a lot of cases but the overall effect is diabolical, deceptive and another d word deeemonic.
I am fascinated by the lack of discussion in the legal community, especially in the common law tradition, of the impact on the Rule of Law, which is really the Rule of Words, of adopting, in places like Canada, if not everywhere in the West, of post-structuralist or Foucault's deconstruction of words. You effectively create what we see, a dual legal system, where the non political is subject to the rule of law, or words, and functions reasonably well, but then the rule of power, where the case touches the political. When the SCC for example doesn't like the implication of words, for example on feminist or gender ideology, it simply switches legal systems, ignores the rule of law applies power theory to the facts. This is very helpful in understanding the implication of this noxious ideology on Western legal systems
For me power and truth are opposed. This means that power is a lie. What truth has can sometimes seem like power. But, unlike power, it is transcendent. Knowledge is not the same as truth. Knowledge is an aspect of truth. Hence we talk of true knowledge. Presumably then we can also have false knowledge. But we cannot have false truth or true truth. We just have truth. Foucault is wrong about confession. In complete confession we confess everything. And in confessing everything we will necessarily include a confession of our sins. (But also inadvertently perhaps a confession of our virtues.) Essentially our sins are what we have on our conscience. This may or may not fit in with somebody else's predetermined notions. Complete confession does not deprive us of power it does the opposite. Or rather it permits us to transcend the dichotomy between power and powerlessness. I.e. the whole realm of worldly power dynamics. To look down on power as the plaything of children is to be more than powerful. It is to have authority. Indeed the only true authority: the authority of truth. This presumably is what Christ represented. Hence the Bible says, 'He spake not as the scribes do but as one who had authority.' Foucault is only too typical of academia. Like so many up-and-coming academics he is more interested in power than in truth. This is why such people do so well in exams. Those who are more interested in truth than in power are less competitive and therefore tend to do less well. Foucault is different from most of his colleagues in readily admitting to this. He has begun to confess his sins. But still his point of view is perverted and so ultimately depraved. He still had a long way to go.
Objectification of man and deconstruction of objective knowledge. When person might be so immoral to use own institutional power for personal benefits. When everyone is corrupt.
But definitions of words are constantly changing from time to time allowing to abuse its power under new circumstances.
@@andreyrussian2480but it could be the opposite, as well, meaning liberating. I taught my young kids a collection of emotive language, so they can express how they feel (to the degree it maps on, etc.). This way, the language is there to circumvent frustration/confusion when trying to communicate with me. Or, think of a person suffering from an affliction. To name it is to begin to fix it.
@@peterg418 I meant words as laws changing them at whim as a tyrant.
I see. When do you think we will reach the final vocabulary, and how will we know?
@@peterg418 Actually I doubting of "we". Collective knowledge and existence of others. If it was question concerning my previous thoughts.
Thank you very much Dr. Masson. Truly learned a lot from your video.
I took a few of your classes over Zoom back in the 2020-2021 school year. Yours were my favourites, and I wish I got the chance to sit in a real classroom with you!
Love your presentations, Dr. Masson. Thanks for the videos.
principalities and powers. the thing about guys like fookoh and derrida is that there is no doubt they are intelligent and express concepts that are valid and deep in a lot of cases but the overall effect is diabolical, deceptive and another d word deeemonic.
As controversial historian and professor Dr. David Starkey says, “all bad ideas come from France”.
I am fascinated by the lack of discussion in the legal community, especially in the common law tradition, of the impact on the Rule of Law, which is really the Rule of Words, of adopting, in places like Canada, if not everywhere in the West, of post-structuralist or Foucault's deconstruction of words. You effectively create what we see, a dual legal system, where the non political is subject to the rule of law, or words, and functions reasonably well, but then the rule of power, where the case touches the political. When the SCC for example doesn't like the implication of words, for example on feminist or gender ideology, it simply switches legal systems, ignores the rule of law applies power theory to the facts. This is very helpful in understanding the implication of this noxious ideology on Western legal systems
For me power and truth are opposed. This means that power is a lie. What truth has can sometimes seem like power. But, unlike power, it is transcendent. Knowledge is not the same as truth. Knowledge is an aspect of truth. Hence we talk of true knowledge. Presumably then we can also have false knowledge. But we cannot have false truth or true truth. We just have truth.
Foucault is wrong about confession. In complete confession we confess everything. And in confessing everything we will necessarily include a confession of our sins. (But also inadvertently perhaps a confession of our virtues.) Essentially our sins are what we have on our conscience. This may or may not fit in with somebody else's predetermined notions. Complete confession does not deprive us of power it does the opposite. Or rather it permits us to transcend the dichotomy between power and powerlessness. I.e. the whole realm of worldly power dynamics. To look down on power as the plaything of children is to be more than powerful. It is to have authority. Indeed the only true authority: the authority of truth. This presumably is what Christ represented.
Hence the Bible says, 'He spake not as the scribes do but as one who had authority.'
Foucault is only too typical of academia. Like so many up-and-coming academics he is more interested in power than in truth. This is why such people do so well in exams. Those who are more interested in truth than in power are less competitive and therefore tend to do less well. Foucault is different from most of his colleagues in readily admitting to this. He has begun to confess his sins. But still his point of view is perverted and so ultimately depraved. He still had a long way to go.