u/whatcouldgo_ok — reddlx

> "It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument ... In the philosopher, ... there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other."

- Nietzsche, *Beyond Good and Evil,* Chapter 1, Section 6

***

F **ucault famously hated the psychoanalysts and rejected psychoanalysis as a valid structure. This is really fucking funny considering that if you psychoanalyze F* ucault his positions all suddenly seem embarrassingly pathological...

For example:

F **ucault rejects psychoanalysts. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because of his early negative experiences with a psychoanalyst who he hated and felt coerced by.
F$$ ucault is a naked advocate of the expansion of the will to power and views all social phenomenon thru the lens of domination/submission. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he is a sado-masochist and participant in BDSM.
F* *ucault does not ever mention or theorize about women in any of his works and seems completely uninterested in extending his analysis to womanhood or or the female experience. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he is homosexual and the woman is psychologically and metaphysically foreign to him.
F *ucault argues that all forms of societal punishment are baseless, that there is no criminal behavior, and that all behavior should be permitted without consequences. Psychoanalysts would suggest this is because he wants to see age of consent laws abolished in the West so that he could do in the West what he did in the East, which is have sex with Tunisian boys.

I just want to discover what actual opinions do people have about this, let's say, "critical" piece of Foucault

Maybe you will need a thoroughly read of this interview given by Foucault, a rare one or at least an intervention that doesn't get attacked so much by people who claim that they have engaged with Foucault's work on a direct fashion.

The interview given by Foucault is named "The danger of child sexuality", and you can type it on Google, and find the piece of text on ""uib"" or other resources out there, having in mind that the academic ones are superior of course. You just have to read it all to understand the context.

My prime curiosity would be what was Foucault thinking when he articulated the problem in such a suspect way. I suppose he wasn't so unconscious about this little textual heritage because he didn't, from what I could find, corrected those mental transfers of his and the public sphere didn't asked him for clarifications, which was convenient. Is this the way many french people really thought on those days? Because it is a really disorganized thinking, and really irresponsible to be honest.

I get that there were tumultuous times, but this type of inversion of perspectives really don't fight the good fight and some people find this intellectual promiscuity only now, at least some people from outside France approached this recently as I regard. On the other hand, continuous inversions of multiple aspects is not something strange for the relativist(ic) mind, where all the meanings are reversed, and reversed again, till nothing matters and there's no meaning in rest.

Or am I missing something when regarding this approach? What was their real objective? Are we suppose to think that all those french philosophers were actually rationals and wouldn't actually tolerate the degeneracy we see in those types of body-text? Are we suppose to take those points as being really deep or just metaphors of something? I just ask.