Michel Foucault - The Culture of the Self, First Lecture, Part 1 of 7
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ค. 2010
- This is the first in a series of three lectures in which French philosopher Michel Foucault examines Western culture's conceptual development of individual subjectivity. He gave these lectures, in English, at UC Berkeley, beginning on April 12, 1983, roughly a year before he died. There are some negligable distortions in the tape.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/fou...
A suggestion for those who have trouble understanding Foucault's works: I found it necessary and most helpful to learn what his "conceptual definitions" are. Do that before you read. Understand what Foucault means by "technologies, genealogies, etc". You must not take these words on common understanding. He has specific definitions for those terms. Hope it helps. I was tortured while studying Foucault but now am glad I made the effort. He's worth it!
where can I find these crucial definitions?
Torture Foucault instead
@@KashmirPL you can try to listen to this series! He explains the terms somewhat better here imo. You might have to listen to him a few times to fully grasp the meaning though lol. th-cam.com/play/PLhKyqCuHlL8oHtmOQwgFfLx0QUlYHGvHr.html
@@josephhill1315 why lmao
@@justamoteofdust Do you have any resources on his concept of a dispositif?
Foucault is just a pure genius on power and discourse, regimes of truths! If I could bring him back from the dead just to have one hour conversation I would pick his brain! Really gets you to think critically!
I wish I could bring him back from the dead and have a conversation with him. Thank you for inspiring me to do my own research in defining the body, discipline, axis of power/knowledge, regimes of truth and discourse. Everyone should run and buy his books and enlighten their minds, it will do you some good.
Thank you for the time and effort to make this material available.
I had to go to revisit this lecture, as I keep getting darned suggestions on TH-cam that I ought to follow some stranger who made a video's advice on how not to have ''toxic people in my life'', how to ''not die with regrets'', how to ''improve''.
I am sick of all these people telling me to focus on the self as the basis of culture. I had to come to Foucault for respite from the insistent suggestions I ought to improve my individuality.
Think, this is a very important lecture to shed a new light on the western tradition of "wisdom" in the sense that it is not so much about 'individuals' having to adapt to ideas, society, economy or religion, etc. but rather that there is a way to learn to "CARE FOR ONESELF" as a basis for any ethical as well as meaningful human living.
This is being presented as an everyday life practice at the heart of all great teachers of the west (Plato, Socrates, Epiktet, Epikur, Seneca, Plutarch etc.)
God I wish I could've attended a Foucault lecture
Oh my god. Apoloxias. You're my new TH-cam hero.
Part 1 increased my IQ by 7 points.
Also, Foucault might have heavy critiques of "IQ"
i think saying Foucault is a post modernist is restricting his extremely wide berth of knowledge and writing. his writing has elements of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and political science, and I wouldn't even call his philosophical writings postmodernist. you need to actually read him before making uninformed claims about his point of view.
Poststructuralist for me, defs don't see him as a postmod.
Thank you brother
Foucault was not a Marxist. He argued against basic Marxist tenents.
To say that postmodernism is "garbarge" is to misunderstand the concept, BalenAzez. In my reading of postmodernism, it's not an agenda or a program or a political platform, it's just an observation that this is how the world is working in our time. And postmodernism does not claim to be "The Truth." Part of postmodernism is to question the narrative, for instance, why do we (Americans, that is) always tell the Revolutionary War story from the perspective of the victorious White Male Americans ? Is there another narrative, say, from the Native Americans, or the African Americans,.or the British, or the Hessians, or the French?
Exactly and this is the crux of why so many misunderstand the concept. The countless charges of nihilism and this pervasive idea that insights derived from postmodern thought mean you cant make decisions or have a moral viewpoint really get my goat lol. All postmodern thought does is offer something different to contend with and brings to the forefront subjugated knowledges. Of course it works as critique as well but fundamentally for me it just offers a different way of thinking about things. It's entirely possible that all this could have happened without giving these modes of thought the label 'postmodern' in the first place. It's the label which causes hysteria and I think that these concepts are no where near as hysterical as they seem to become when the word 'postmodern' is applied to them. What are your thoughts on this Samantha?
WahdicalWeftist
What do you mean by won? Winning at high incarceration rates, for example, isn't exactly winning. And look at the University, look at what some call Cultural Marxism and Political Correctness, postmodern thought resonates through all of it. The logic of multiculturalism, to use another word I don't necessarily like, is in many ways a postmodern logic. It seems to me, to use your idiotic language, postmodernism is "winning".
This leads me to ask, how is postmodern thought parasitic? It's clear to me there are a multiplicity of attacks on Western, Enlightenemtn values, especially in Foucault, so maybe it's important to ask why these values are attacked in the first place; have you asked yourself that?
+MartianManhunter1987 You guys must be new to philosophy. After you get into it for a while, you take those ideas and run with it till the hysterical end, and don't stop there.
How does this address my post? It came up as a reply to me and I'm not sure why.
Pray for salvation
I'm an analytic philosopher, but I would love to party with Foucault.
Does anyone here have this in a complete mp3 format?
A link would be much appreciated!
thanks a lot for sharing this incredible, inspirational material... when will there be the second lecture -or is it not on the tape? Are there any written/printed documentations to these late lectures?
cheers so far,
and thanks again,
m.
Is there a transcript of this lecture out there on the web? Thanks in advance and thanks for the upload! Very enlightening stuff ;)
🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤🖤Paul - Michel is the one.
@cvvemuri dude, could you tell me where does Niezsche said that? I am curious
thinking on ur own is good!
anyone has the transcript of this lecture?
When you figure it out, let me know.
Derrida says explicitly that "to deconstruct does not mean to destroy," so rip apart isn't really the right description. Reveal self-contradictions is more accurate. Illustrating how the philosophical assumptions that a concept or philosophy take for granted are actually questionable might also be a helpful way of understanding it. Also, you're right, Deconstruction as philosophy also tends toward deconstruction. Derrida explains that, and the Derridean tradition focuses on it as well.
J Wins huiugdhss
The One
@carlo88moe Just to clarify, you say the end of deconstruction is to rip apart and reveal self-contradictions: you mean it aims to do this with respect to positions which appeal to logic and evidence, right? (not that it aims to do this to deconstruction itself?) I don't know Derrida's work all that well, but my suspicion is that if he had given a concise, positive statement of what deconstruction is, perhaps it would be subject to the same supposed dismantling that he employs on other views?
thanks chum!
@cvvemuri It seems that in America Derrida and... Chomsky :o) are the "philosophers".
Derrida is being read by some who are not studying philosophy.
I like the cut of your jib, young man. Any philosopher who winds up a madman has sadly invalidated his life's work. We're not here to drive ourselves insane and lose all our dignity.
OK, I get that. But I still can't sit and read one of his books and understand it. I have to get it through lectures and secondary sources.
For my account of the Madness and Error debate between Foucault and Derrida
see:
The Journal of Magnus Opium
A Wordpress Blog
"Blasphemy and heresy, and treason and dissent are two diametric categories that turn on the same specific difference as madness and error. The first thing to notice in considering these sets of categories is that the difference is most certainly one . "
There is no better way to say that than by having no punctuation or capitalization in your post. By the way, I thought post modernists couldn't believe anyone to be stupid. I am just viewing the world through the subjectivity of my own experiences. So actually, I'm an expert. And so are you!
Microphysics of power.
Find that book and discover.
The same could be said about neoliberalism (term coined by economics illiteracy), reductionism and determinism (term coined by science illteracy).
I Agree.
@familliaraver What didn't you understand? Seriously. Do you know Magritte's work? This tiny book is crystal clear.
I can explain it to you if you leave your doubts.
damn. anyone know what he says at 8:53 ??
O.o which of his books have you read? Can you give me an example of an excerpt you struggle to understand?
@cvvemuri "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."
- Albert Einstein
@familliaraver Honest question: Could you comment on anyway this search has made you better? Again, I'm sincerely interested in your comment.
@MrShayneOneill Deleuze and Guatarri created a lot of new words to sustain his concepts but once you understand some of them it becomes easy.
And as they touch many issues it is rich for those who are a little patient.
Maybe the Anti-Oedipus is the only one that is not worthy paying too much attention.
:)
Did Foucault refer to AD (anno domini) 2:58 as "after death" and is this not a anomaly?
Two years late haha but yeah people say “after death” sometimes.
What is he saying @8:56? It seems important, but he fumbled the microphone or something...
"Tout est construit"
Does anybody knows where can I get the transcripts of this lecture?
9 years later. nope..
@@michaelg7520 TH-cam now provides automatically generated transcripts. Click the three dots button next to "clip" button below the video window.
Ummmm, thank you for sharing :) Relatively unrelated to what I was saying but a good quote to share nonetheless to clear up the misconceptions about Foucault being a Marxist.
@cvvemuri Again, you'll have to excuse my lack of familiarity with Derrida's work, but I thought it was his view that there is no meaning of a text - wouldn't that make them semantically meaningless? (not sure what you mean by 'value').
And as for revealing a text's assumptions, its historical orientation, etc, that sounds like the aims of philosophical analysis in general, not just decon. Isn't there more to it than that? I thought it had some serious implications for the decon. texts
I think the basic idea was that there were alot of meanings.... like how "saw" has no singular meaning..
Voldemort is the villain in the Harry Potter series. I never read Foucault because, like most post modernists, he uses a lot of words, says nothing, and defends his "conclusions" with "subjectivity." Nonetheless, he's one of the more likable post modernists (not that he grew on me or anything).
@grrrantw
well said
true :-)
Also, I have always wondered: why do people bitch about philosophers, and call them "subjectivists" etc. just to put them into categories as if that would undermine their arguments? Is it because they "mess" with our ordinary language? You never hear anyone bitch about all the reductionistic ( ;-) ) scientists that say stuff like "actually the whole world is flat"; "actually we are just biologically superior apes" jadajadajada...
@carlo88moe Moreover, if you're right, then any account of Derrida's view which is stated more clearly than Derrida's own words would have to be a misrepresentation, right? Does that mean it's impossible to for anyone to explain what Derrida is saying (without simply quoting him)? Personally I tend to think that if you can say it, you can say it clearly ("wovon mann nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen").
Nonsense. Plato was the greatest stylist of them all.
Metaphysics? How? This is very much grounded in historical realities, and historical truths at play at the times he describes. Further, concerning his analyses of post-industrial revolution matters, Foucault acknowledges the necessity of a marxist interpretation of political economy (Security, Territory, Population, chp. 4 I believe).
Bit unfair since he can't respond to you.
@Hamking1 I'd like to have an example of Einstein really explaining General Relativity to a six yr old.
@matcooz Exactly!
Yea, I was being snarky, because I'm well educated and I still caon't understand his writing. But if you can, more power to you. I'm still trying.
@f1ghtclub2k3 Shouldn't have any trouble. From my experience, many continentals obfuscate the meaning of their text & use unnecessarily provocative or ambiguous phrasing to appear profound & original (eg: Badiou, Marion, Chretien, and especially Derrida). Foucault, in contrast, writes clearly, with the aim of being understood by the reader. Not for everyone I suppose: intelligibility is only desirable when one has something to say (which may account for the disparity in their writing-styles).
@familliaraver Read Charles Sanders Pierce. "Collected Papers"
Dunno why but I thought it was John Malkowich who introduced him... just from his first sentence ;)
Why does he sound like a brother from Cameroon?
philosophy is the shit! philosophy is cool! I love philosophy! philosophy is my life!
I found his book "this is not a pipe" when I was 16 and have spent the rest of my life trying to figure out what the fuck this man is talking about. And I'm a better person for it.
2.34 intro guff ends.
@naggers123 because I have to write a paper on him in my English class! :P
His inventing philosophy notwithstanding?
@TheF86Sabre 99% of offenses tells more about the offender than the one who is the object of the gratuity of simple words.
@S2Cents lol good one
Razón no es iluminación.
@sweenith thats certainly the position of those who support the intellectual structures like the university,the position of those academics whom have a vested interest to reproach Derrida bc its he who is their subverter.But my take,call it the deflection of an admirer,is that hes necessarily complex bc his prose is the only type of sprawling&evasive approach that begets those complex messages.Derrida's message isnt amenable to a lucid sentence. but1thing4sure,ud have to be masochist to like him
@S2Cents Totally agree. Surely Chomsky belongs to another group.
The only problem is the way some Americans see him as a genius when he is not.
He did some good alerts in the past but now, and I have checked with serious Americans scholars, he is not doing a god job and sometimes is helping the system.
@carlo88moe Lol yeah, regarding most continental philosophy I suppose I'd be something of a 'no bullshit man'. But on the other extreme, many analytics philosophers (the positivist and physicalist-inclined, in particular) would consider my views as extravagant, perhaps even a bit ontologically promiscuous (as Quine says "It offends the aesthetic sense of us who have a taste for desert landscapes"). I myself don't care much for deserts, nor for ambiguously-deep swamps. Somewhere in between.
@AnaLimaLuiza I disagree that Chomsky is helping the system even IF the case can be made that his activism and/or his analysis doesn't totally add up in every way
ok
@S2Cents Just like Alex Jones. I don't like Alex Jones that much but he says the same Chomsky do and reaches those who are not elite.
Chomsky was good in creating his generative grammar but people forgot it.
Strange.
@sweenith hmm, i dont totally discount those dicta, but im not persuaded by them...hm, no i dont think theyd be misrepresentation, i think derrida himself would look kindly of them in the sort of way that he made that dense text accessible to many interpretations, many truths( deconstruction??lol), but if justified by logic and evidence....id think thats the 'summum bonum' so to speak of deconstruction; to be ripped apart and for it to contradict itself.... anyhow, thanks for answering :)
when you dismiss something without any real argument, it's always cool to namedrop some crazy austrians
Wittgwnstein!
@carlo88moe Even Nietzsche (a subverter if there ever was one) said "Whoever knows he is deep tries to be clear, but whoever wants to seem deep to the crowd tries to be obscure. For the crowd supposes that anything it cannot see to the bottom must be deep: it is so timid and goes so unwillingly into the water." Now maybe that's true of Derrida, maybe not.
@AnaLimaLuiza he's a step up from alex jones. seriously that isn't a fair comparison
I agree wholeheartedly. I feel postmodernist literature is far inferior to modernist literature, which has the sense of optimism and romanticism which I feel makes it great art and resonate with the individual.
Your sense of the “individual” is the problem
who?
but you should have asked them why did they have to use all that kinda fancy language?! :) at least at the beginning!
Would then 'self-repudiation' of the masses lead to anarcho syndicalism or a complete dog-eat-dog world ??!
Foucault looks like Fantomas !
amazing, this is who they made Fantomas after. I was wondering. They certainly had Foucault in mind. This actually pushes me into irrational sympathy, because I always loved Fantomas.
@S2Cents He is helping US government when he believes in "humanitarian aid" in countries of the north of Africa.
Look for his ideas about what is happening in Libya. He also don't question the official version of the committee that came up to the conclusion that 9/11 was Al-Qaeda.
Two examples.
He spent his life championing the plight of the opressed and the underclass, in languadge that they can't possibly understand.
poetry recitationn
i think you confused me with someone else
@AnaLimaLuiza
And the sheep continue to sleep until war knocks on their door.
Broccoli would have given you eight--PLUS firmer stool.
It’s interesting, because if you had actually read Foucault before criticizing him you would understand how he felt about this, because he actually addresses it. Communism is NOT applied Marxism. The Marxist ideal is a classless and stateless society. In communism social classes and states are at the very center of society. There is a military class which holds all the power in society. In practice, communism looks exactly like capitalism. Only with one kind of social class instead of another.
Your asking the wrong question.
@AnaLimaLuiza Denying Libya's invasion, bloodshed, tortures, massacres numerous crimes against humanity that are being committed in Libya is helps what is being done in Syria.
What is happening in Syria, and of course you have to search and not be informed by mainstream media, is the same that happened in Libya.
There we go again!
WW3 is just around the corner.
Why not speak in French? It's not that the faculty at the University of Berkeley were, at a time, as ignorant as nowadays ?
@AnaLimaLuiza Sorry, I don't read gibberish.
"he isn't just a "postmodernist"(oversimplify and renounce much?)"
This response makes me smile because it is so ironic.
i paid money to a singing teacher and i entered the opera theatre choir. without musical education and being too old.
i trained 3 years already being in.
so --dont laugh about what you know shit.
He looks like Voldemort in this picture.
"I going to kill you, Harry Potter... By making you a docile body. Mwahaha"
Why speak French?
and that nonsense you just uttered is the essence of postmodernism
so what? when a great thinker dies, the idiots feel better...(Deleuze)
@jumpnjza2 lol You really don't understand anything. Existential oppression? He was a psychologist but soon gave up and wrote "History of Madness".
Keep reading Marx, only Marx.
It is amazing how Marxism make some people totally alienated.