[freedomben]

I'm by no means an expert on Foucault, but I highly recommend learning about some of his ideas or even better, read some of writings. You may not come away agreeing with him (especially right away) but his ideas on freedom deeply impacted me.

You'll see him criticized and reviled in many philosophical circles as being the epitome of post-modernism (which has (unfairly IMHO) become a bit of a dirty word in some cultures), but don't let that scare you. I believe (mostly from reading analysis from people much smarter than me, like Thaddeus Russell) that Foucault is widely misunderstood.

[voidhorse]

Couldn't agree more...but which philosophical circles!? When I attended college a couple years ago it seemed like Foucault was either all the rage (to those who liked "continental" philosophy) or simply not discussed (in the "analytic" philosophical circles); he was lambasted almost exclusively by those who had heard some sketchy third party synopsis of his thought and reacted negatively and never bothered to actually comprehend his ideas.

I think the NYT quote on the back of many of the english paperback editions of his works, "Foucault must be reckoned with," sums up his position in the history of philosophy perfectly--his ideas were quite radical and not easy to contend with at first (especially from the perspective of anglo-american pedagogy), but the level of scholarly thinking and ingenuity the man possessed are awe-inducing.

His thesis History of Madness is still an incredible read and really drives home the often great degree of malleability and historical contingency of cultural/social concepts and categories.

[handojin]

'Discipline and Punish' is a masterwork and a great read. Foucault's influence is huge. If you're capable of reading him and choose not to, you may be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I say this as someone who read Russell's chapter on Nietzsche and avoided reading his work, then read it.

Critiques should be accompanied with salt.

[keiferski]

The overwhelming majority of people that criticize post-modernism have little-or-no actual knowledge of it. Foucault can indeed be difficult to understand, but make no mistake, he does have interesting things to say.

[Veen]

Many who criticize post-modernism (and Foucault) aren't really criticizing the philosophy, but the understanding of that philosophy among groups who have adopted it for political ends.

When people say "post-modernism sucks" they mean, for example, that moral relativism sucks, or that it is stupid to view science as a grand narrative of no more value than other narratives. When they say "Foucault sucks" they are attacking the understanding among the "woke" of how power relations work in society, an understanding that is drawn, however incompetently, from readings of Foucault.

Leading post-modern philosophers didn't embrace those positions in an uncomplicated way, but many influenced by them do, and they massively outnumber the people who have actually bothered to read Derrida or Baudrillard.

Furthermore, many post-modern philosophers were showboaters who enjoyed being provocative, so you don't have to look hard to find justification for the unnuanced understanding of their work.

[pmoriarty]

What do you mean by "woke"?

[brohee]

I would guess that meaning : https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woke

A word currently used to describe "consciousness" and being aware of the truth behind things "the man" doesn't want you to know i.e. classism, racism...

[browningstreet]

A suggested reading that discusses wokeness, to some degree:

A THOUSAND SMALL SANITIES

The Moral Adventure of Liberalism

By Adam Gopnik

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/14/books/review/adam-gopnik-...

[vixen99]

No argument there. Even a critic like Roger Scruton who has read him writes "Whatever you think of Foucault (and Rorty), there is no doubt that they were intelligent writers and genuine scholars with a distinctive vision of reality. They opened the way to fakes but were not fakes themselves. Matters are quite otherwise with many of their contemporaries."

To name names, he means Lacan and Althusser among many others.

[nyolfen]

they're usually talking about its political and epistemological legacy: https://areomagazine.com/2018/06/30/postmodernism-vs-the-pom...

[dalbasal]

Likewise for modernism, or any philosophy really. Only 6 peope have ever read Marx, sans Engels. One of them was Engels.

[woodandsteel]

Many thousands of people have read Marx, all of his works. More important, his basic ideas are clear and understandable.

Marx believed that history was driven by the means of production, and that the original means, foraging, produced societies that were egalitarian and peaceful. Then the human race switched to agriculture, and societies became unequal, oppressive, and militaristic. This went on for thousands of years, until finally some societies switched to industrialization and capitalism, which upended the old social order, but lead to new forms of oppression and suffering. But capitalism has internal contradictions that will lead to its being overthrown by the workers and replaced with anarchistic socialism which will be egalitarian and peaceful. And so everyone should join in and support the overthrow of capitalism.

That is all clear and understandable, and that is not an accident, because Marx's goal was to change the world through mass political action, and the only way that can happen is if you have a set of ideas that is understandable to ordinary people.

And that leads me back to Foucault. If is ideas are so complex and subtle that only a tiny elite of dedicated scholars can understand them, then they are of little use in helping people overcome the many things wrong in the world today.

[weeksie]

I couldn't agree more. I just finished reading Discipline and Punish, expecting to roll my eyes all the way through and I came away really impressed.

[dalbasal]

>>highly recommend learning about some of his ideas or even better, read some of writings.

Care to get more specific with that recommendation? Ideally, an entry point in the 30m-60m range.

[nickloewen]

I know only some of Foucault’s work, and don’t know much of him as an essayist. Nevertheless, if you are looking for something brief but significant, I would recommend “What is an author?”

I think it gives a sense of the sort of theoretical work that Foucault is interested in (which is perhaps somewhat distinct from his more historically and politically oriented work). It also contends with questions of information and ownership in a way that may be interesting from a “hacker” perspective.

[coffeecat]

Any particular works that you would recommend starting with?

[mieses]

The 1971 debate between Chomsky and Foucault was interesting because it made Chomsky seem sane. Worth watching. It helps to understand French but youtube might have some translation feature. Foucault is far worse than he's misunderstood to be. In the end he's just an opinionated French guy channelling Robespierre.