not an argument against his ideas, though
Michel Foucault, world-famous post-modern French philosopher, was a suicidal pedo who was addicted to sexual torture and worshipped the vile Marquis de Sade. He also knowingly infected bath house boys with fatal AIDs before dying of it himself. Leftists love him. Case closed.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
-
i believe this is called "Ad Hominem", correct?
-
I do not believe this stands as an Ad-hominem. If Foucault had made an argument to Stephan and Stephan replied with a personal attack that would be an Ad-hominem. This is just a statement of fact.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
This Tweet is unavailable
-
-
Far left has a frightening amount of people among them who worship or admire dangerous people such as him, Che Guevara, Linda Sarsour etc.
-
And the far right don't? LOL
-
It's far easier to recognize the problems with certain far-right ideologies because they a) instantly appear to be dangerous b) aren't well-intended & c) are openly bigoted. With the left, it's more often the case of "good intentions but bad ideas due to confusion etc.".
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I was forced to read his entire History of Madness during my ultra left-wing indoctrination years (i.e., Canadian university). Him and the pretentious Derrida.
-
They have their limited insight; meaning & signification is almost infinitely contextual; signifiers part of a sliding evolving web of meaning; discourses operate on the world and have corrupt power that can hide behind “naturalness”; discourse structures & mediate experience.
-
Interestingly regressive postmodernists (way less common than Molyneux & ilk seem to assume) exploit Derrida’s contextualism to push power through aggressively hegemonic social justice discourse.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Stefan, I can see where you're coming from, but, citing his bad character as a reason to dismiss his ideas is the ad hominem fallacy. A terrible person could be right about something. For example, Trump isn't the greatest person, but he's right about a lot of issues.
-
Is it though? A person who is morally reprehensible then argues for moral relativism, absolving themselves of guilt. It makes a difference. It's not an ad hominem. It goes to motive. He couldn't live up to moral standards, so he sought to destroy them.
-
Interesting point. You are going a step further than Stefan, saying that the reason for his philosophy was his own lack of morals. But still, I think that strictly speaking, one has to refute the philosophy apart from personal characteristics. 1/2
-
You lost me at Trump having ideas. Trump doesn’t have ideas, he’s given them. He doesn’t know how to think, he’s told what to think- a lot like most Molyneux fans, especially those who defend his ad hominems/half-truths/various other techniques designed to circumvent rationality
-
I'm not sure what to say to this. Trump certainly has ideas; he has ideas about cutting taxes and regulations in order to make the economy stronger. And it worked. He is pro-life, and he has ideas about tariffs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Stefan I’m not a great fan of Foucault, but can we not separate the person from the ideas? Most philosophers, artists, etc have been assholes, addicts, depressives, and sickos. It tends to come with the territory.
-
Other than his ideas being catastrophically bad, he sought to destroy the standards he could not meet. So no, in the case, there is no separating the idea from the person.
-
I have to say that I’ve read a lot of Foucault and while I get Stefan’s points, he has really willfully reduced Foucault’s philosophy. Even if you disagree with his ideas, Stefan’s discussion did not do justice to those ideas.
-
This Tweet is unavailable
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.