17:06 The modern day analog being China’s implementation of a _social credit system_ where people rate/report one another. Black Mirror had an episode called _Nosedive_ which satirized this type of culturally enforced “panopticon”. Scary stuff..
No it's not. It's better than the TSA stopping you randomly and you having no idea how to stop it. All the social credit system does is a lighter version of what western nations do except you can look up how to prevent or change it.
@@jenm1 I disagree, it app-ifies subjectivity.. totalitarian flavor of the 21st century. Look up Yuval Harari (Israeli historian) in discussion with Zuckerberg on here and listen to what he says in regards to new authoritarianisms emerging from new tech (Cambridge analytica, etc have been the proving grounds for this). You say we can’t escape TSA.. fine, but that doesn’t really relate, as it’s not nearly as concerning as a system which lives on top of you analyzing every interaction you have in your daily life, tracking your social merits and doling out punishments as deemed fit for not conforming to the government checklist of “good person.” Scary stuff.
@@nightoftheworld The TSA was one example. I know of Harari. I think you need a basic course in Marxism my friend. Capitalism does exactly what you think China is doing.
China operates a more visible, less sophisiticated technique of disciplinary control and combines it with jurdicial control and soverign power. The west operates a more sophisiticated, less visible form of disciplinary control whereby the judgement of population at large is alreadly normalized and conforms to the status quo therefore less violent oppression is needed to maintain control.
So I listen to you on spotify.... made it to episode 5 before I decided I needed to review it... found there was no way to review the content aside from iTunes, which I dont own apple products, therefore dont have an iTunes. So I've subscribed and followed you on about every platform I could. And I'll give some feed back this way. By far the easiest to listen to pod cast I have ever heard. I really really enjoy it and can't wait till I can catch up to everyone else. Please keep it coming. Will be recommended to friends and shared on social media.
John Stuart Mill had some similar ideas about power, stating that government control was far weaker than cultural control. Also, it’s so surprising that so many public thinkers have denigrated Foucault when to me his ideas are novel, fascinating, and not at all how he’s represented.
There is always going to be the glowing irony around Foucault, because he seemed to be trying to create his own dominant narratives. However, he did bring up some interesting talking points. But his ideas seemed to rely to heavily on the supposition that people can just simply change their minds. As if the solution was that simple. I think he greatly underestimated how deeply ingrained our behavioral instincts can be. Not only that, but how much we don't understand them. We have a nature, it isn't like we are born as blank slates. It seems like he was trying to reinvent the wheel.
On your first point, about dominant narratives, read the first few lectures from Society Must Be Defended where he explicitly talks about this. From the first lecture, "[Genealogies] are therefore not positivistic returns to a form of science that is more attentive or more accurate. [...] They are about the insurrection of knowledges. Not so much against the contents, methods, or concepts of a science; this is above all, primarily, an insurrection against the centralizing power-effects that are bound up with the institutionalization and workings of any scientific discourse organized in a society such as ours. [...] Genealogy has to fight the power-effects characteristic of any discourse that is regarded as scientific." He goes on to say that "The question or questions that have to be asked are: 'What type of knowledge are you trying to disqualify when you say that you are a science? What speaking subject, what discursive subject, what subject of experience and knowledge are you trying to minorize when you begin to say: 'I speak this discourse, I am speaking a scientific discourse, I am a scientist'." And he never thought people could simply change their views and break out of power by simply 'seeing things clearly'. You can insist all you like that "we have a nature", but Foucault simply doesn't accept this and spent his entire career demonstrating how so much of what you presumably think is our 'nature' is a product of history, power and knowledge - not some sort of innate 'human nature'.
Dude! That seems right! (sorry, long rant coming, feel free to ignore) There doesnt seem like there's a "true" narrative of how people should live or what people should value or whats sane or insane. Because, if you were living in 2500bc Egypt, you may have been surrounded by people who thought you were crazy if you werent bowing to the east 3 times a day, and preparing for the afterlife and building pyramids... then in modern America people consider it normal to spend 40 years paying for a mortgage while buying alot of things they dont need (that sort of seems crazy to me).. and now even more recently the internet has more people in their own bubbles, and it seems like there's less of a central narrative.. and news groups and most groups have sort have become unabashedly obvious that, "Yeah, we know there's no central/absolute narrative, so we'd be fools to write or pump out any narratives in a way that doesnt support ourselves and our team".. and thats just the name of the game now, even while people claim their take is the truth, they must know they're giving a spin to support their way of life and their team just by the fact that there are multiple narratives out there.. even Trump knows this so he's just shamelessly pumping out tweet after tweet to his base cause he knows if he's loud enough and gets it into enough ears, then that sways people's views/interpretations/values, and thats all that matters to him.. And that makes me wonder sometimes if its foolish or disadventageous to try to stick to the truth in these times, maybe people should just try to say and do whatever so they and their team win, and let god sort it out later (i dont agree with that though, i'm gunna keep trying to see truth etc) but that seems to be the mindset of climate deniers etc.. and i think thats the mindset of alot of people who are willfully ignorant, they think "You fools can be goody-goodys and try to find the truth, we'll just be over here doing whatever it takes to win, make money, and enjoy ourselves" .. and who is right? Is there a "right"? What's right for you might hurt others.. or hurt you later.. or hurt others later.. is hurting others wrong if they would hurt you...? What action would you take in "The Prisoner's Dilemna"? Anyways.. I dunno, but i'm gunna try to side with the goodguy truth seekers mostly just cause they seem to support animal welfare more (sorry, i know this was too long, i love this podcast though and it provoked alot of thoughts! it said "Philosophize this" and so i did) I bet all of this uncertainty might be solved by Artificial Intelligence.. a forsee an impartial, computerized government and policing system that just calculates what does the most good and is most fair for the most amount of people, because humans are too biased and prone to selfishness and tribalism. Save us soon A.I.!
I wonder if there's will always be a kind of fundamental battle between the youth who want change that's better adapted to a changed world.. and the older people in power who are just trying to hold on to what they got (who can blame them).. i know this is a false dichotomy and its not that simple but that seems like a common pattern.. and being 40 years old i can sympathize with both groups.. you could see the older people as selfish willfully ignorant curmudgeons trying to hold onto their wealth and outdated way of life.. or the young as arrogant little monsters who dont care about the old and want them out of the way screaming "why dont you just fade away".. i heard some millenials refer to covid as "the boomer remover" and laughing... (unrelated) There's this other Podcast i like called Jocko Podcast.. and he coined a term called "Extreme Ownership" that is a belief that one should "own" the circumstances of their life so that they will feel empowered to take action and do something about it.. and he sits across the table from a black man whom he always kind of dominates (and the show is in black and white).. and they argue sometimes about how much ownership an individual has of their life, and the black guy tends to argue that individuals are less responsible for their circumstances.. isnt that how it seems to go too? The more advantaged/more powerful seem to want to claim credit, ownership and that people have authorship of their own destiny.. the disadvantaged/less empowered/less fortunate are more inclined to blame and believe less in their own control or sole responsibility.. WEIRD! its all so weird..
Sometimes i think its unavoidable, that everyone is vying for power, for themselves and the groups they are a part of (if they're not now they will be or they should be).. a powerful way is to do it overtly with oppression and threat of violence.. a less powerful way is trying to guilt or display intellectual superiority.. but it seems like everyone does it.. sometimes it seems like Repulicans represent "The Powerful" oppressing etc, and Liberals as the "less powerful" guilting and using intellectual snobbery.. the Republicans coerce members of the less powerful with the lure that they too can be like the powerful.. and the Liberals coerce Republicans to relent power with guilt and intellectual elitism.. that seems to be a game that goes on... i got it all figured out :D You know what else is weird.. if you look at Trump Tweets, if they're ProTrump their picture will likely be a Macho Looking Guy or a woman who's pretty in a cheap kinda way.. if they're AntiTrump their picture will likely be a minority, or nerdy or homo looking person.. its Weird! :O try it, its usually that way! :O
How does Foucault make sense of instances in the modern world where sovereign-power is used concurrent to bio-power, eg in USA police brutality is still an issue for identifiable communities, but those very same communities are quite obviously also exercising/subjected to bio-power?
@@anthonyconde7604 I agree to a point, but their is nothing new in much of his observations about the fundamental functioning of power. He takes a simple, even simplistic, idea and dresses it up with some juicy, lurid historical customs and practices...in language dependent upon, and replete with, jargon. This jargon...isnt thought...its a substitute for thinking...here I plug in this phrase....here I can plug in this phrase...and so on without doing any work. I'm not saying he isn't worth reading. But...
Control the narrative, and thus control the behavior. We have been in such a petri dish a thousand times over beginning in 2020--while trying to keep our wits about us.
ok so ive listened to a bunch of your podcasts and 👍. besides that i took 1 phil course in college and skimmed some books. foucault has a reputation so i was expecting to be hit with a "they dont think it be like it is but it do". perhaps it was not so back then but today, when speaking about science, there is a categorical/qualitative difference between social "sciences" (aka soft) and "just" sciences (aka hard, aka math/physics/chem). i mean i suppose they are the "arbiters of knowledge" in their domains, but im not sure how much influence their opinion has over the way scientists think. e.g., for me personally, if a psychologist/economist says something, i will usually default to being skeptical that it is a robust, generalizable, and overall useful claim. i guess they had to earn that reputation over time so maybe during foucault's time they had that power. id say i enjoyed structuralism (de saussure, barthes) more than foucault. not saying foucault is bad ofc, he hit me with some good ideas - expanded my thinking.
The social/human sciences were Foucault's main point of reference here - he is interested in physics, for example, but he's generally thinking about psychology, sociology, criminology, political science, biology as well insofar as it crosses between soft/hard sciences. I guess if you want to think about how much power they have, just ask yourself what you think about the history of punishment or sexuality and then read Foucault's books on those topics and see just how wrong you likely were.
This makes me think of wokeness and cancel culture. How people now constantly police each other and cancel whatever is deemed politically incorrect, and because of that only allow a narrow view of the world. Also how knowledge now a days is spread and created thru social media.
Questions the dominant narrative around sexuality and the structures of oppression contained in them...dies of AIDS. Meanwhile, current society is dying of irony
The only CZcams notifications i get excited about!!
Check out PhilosophyTube and Contrapoints !!
Best CZcams series on post modern philosophers I have come across. Thank You.
I am so happy to find your show. Thank you for the amazing content
So glad I discovered this podcast.
Keep up the good work!
Like always you are very clear on demonstrating the subject again. I really enjoyed whole 3 parts of Michel Foucault. Thanks...
Very clear and many eksempel. Keep up the good work!
This show really puts me in a calm state fantastic videos really
You are absolutely wonderful 👌 thank you for such amazing thoughts
Great job I hope for more like this.
thank you so much, it really helps me a lot.
Brilliant!
17:06 The modern day analog being China’s implementation of a _social credit system_ where people rate/report one another. Black Mirror had an episode called _Nosedive_ which satirized this type of culturally enforced “panopticon”. Scary stuff..
No it's not. It's better than the TSA stopping you randomly and you having no idea how to stop it. All the social credit system does is a lighter version of what western nations do except you can look up how to prevent or change it.
@@jenm1 I disagree, it app-ifies subjectivity.. totalitarian flavor of the 21st century. Look up Yuval Harari (Israeli historian) in discussion with Zuckerberg on here and listen to what he says in regards to new authoritarianisms emerging from new tech (Cambridge analytica, etc have been the proving grounds for this).
You say we can’t escape TSA.. fine, but that doesn’t really relate, as it’s not nearly as concerning as a system which lives on top of you analyzing every interaction you have in your daily life, tracking your social merits and doling out punishments as deemed fit for not conforming to the government checklist of “good person.” Scary stuff.
@@nightoftheworld The TSA was one example. I know of Harari. I think you need a basic course in Marxism my friend. Capitalism does exactly what you think China is doing.
China operates a more visible, less sophisiticated technique of disciplinary control and combines it with jurdicial control and soverign power. The west operates a more sophisiticated, less visible form of disciplinary control whereby the judgement of population at large is alreadly normalized and conforms to the status quo therefore less violent oppression is needed to maintain control.
@@jenm1 do you know Slavoj Zizek? You should take a course in him, and listen when he says “back from Marx to Hegel.”
So I listen to you on spotify.... made it to episode 5 before I decided I needed to review it... found there was no way to review the content aside from iTunes, which I dont own apple products, therefore dont have an iTunes. So I've subscribed and followed you on about every platform I could. And I'll give some feed back this way. By far the easiest to listen to pod cast I have ever heard. I really really enjoy it and can't wait till I can catch up to everyone else. Please keep it coming. Will be recommended to friends and shared on social media.
And for the record. I enjoyed the rock music separating topics. I hate they made you quit it.
Also after recently learning that your royalties from spotify are minuscule I will become a patron.
yeah i discovered him just now. he is fuckin fantastic.
great work man keep going.
So good love it
John Stuart Mill had some similar ideas about power, stating that government control was far weaker than cultural control. Also, it’s so surprising that so many public thinkers have denigrated Foucault when to me his ideas are novel, fascinating, and not at all how he’s represented.
thank you.
Hello Steven Wess, I would like to interview you on my podcast if possible. When are you available for an interview podcast?
There is always going to be the glowing irony around Foucault, because he seemed to be trying to create his own dominant narratives. However, he did bring up some interesting talking points. But his ideas seemed to rely to heavily on the supposition that people can just simply change their minds. As if the solution was that simple. I think he greatly underestimated how deeply ingrained our behavioral instincts can be. Not only that, but how much we don't understand them. We have a nature, it isn't like we are born as blank slates. It seems like he was trying to reinvent the wheel.
On your first point, about dominant narratives, read the first few lectures from Society Must Be Defended where he explicitly talks about this. From the first lecture, "[Genealogies] are therefore not positivistic returns to a form of science that is more attentive or more accurate. [...] They are about the insurrection of knowledges. Not so much against the contents, methods, or concepts of a science; this is above all, primarily, an insurrection against the centralizing power-effects that are bound up with the institutionalization and workings of any scientific discourse organized in a society such as ours. [...] Genealogy has to fight the power-effects characteristic of any discourse that is regarded as scientific." He goes on to say that "The question or questions that have to be asked are: 'What type of knowledge are you trying to disqualify when you say that you are a science? What speaking subject, what discursive subject, what subject of experience and knowledge are you trying to minorize when you begin to say: 'I speak this discourse, I am speaking a scientific discourse, I am a scientist'." And he never thought people could simply change their views and break out of power by simply 'seeing things clearly'. You can insist all you like that "we have a nature", but Foucault simply doesn't accept this and spent his entire career demonstrating how so much of what you presumably think is our 'nature' is a product of history, power and knowledge - not some sort of innate 'human nature'.
great sir
BIG LIKE!!!
Despite having clicked the bell, I have missed parts one and two. Apologies, I will catch up!
Vohr Techs - a follower will always be behind.
@@carlyellison8498 WTF? get bent!
@@Homunculas - sometimes 2 years behind.
Dude! That seems right! (sorry, long rant coming, feel free to ignore) There doesnt seem like there's a "true" narrative of how people should live or what people should value or whats sane or insane. Because, if you were living in 2500bc Egypt, you may have been surrounded by people who thought you were crazy if you werent bowing to the east 3 times a day, and preparing for the afterlife and building pyramids... then in modern America people consider it normal to spend 40 years paying for a mortgage while buying alot of things they dont need (that sort of seems crazy to me).. and now even more recently the internet has more people in their own bubbles, and it seems like there's less of a central narrative.. and news groups and most groups have sort have become unabashedly obvious that, "Yeah, we know there's no central/absolute narrative, so we'd be fools to write or pump out any narratives in a way that doesnt support ourselves and our team".. and thats just the name of the game now, even while people claim their take is the truth, they must know they're giving a spin to support their way of life and their team just by the fact that there are multiple narratives out there.. even Trump knows this so he's just shamelessly pumping out tweet after tweet to his base cause he knows if he's loud enough and gets it into enough ears, then that sways people's views/interpretations/values, and thats all that matters to him.. And that makes me wonder sometimes if its foolish or disadventageous to try to stick to the truth in these times, maybe people should just try to say and do whatever so they and their team win, and let god sort it out later (i dont agree with that though, i'm gunna keep trying to see truth etc) but that seems to be the mindset of climate deniers etc.. and i think thats the mindset of alot of people who are willfully ignorant, they think "You fools can be goody-goodys and try to find the truth, we'll just be over here doing whatever it takes to win, make money, and enjoy ourselves" .. and who is right? Is there a "right"? What's right for you might hurt others.. or hurt you later.. or hurt others later.. is hurting others wrong if they would hurt you...? What action would you take in "The Prisoner's Dilemna"? Anyways.. I dunno, but i'm gunna try to side with the goodguy truth seekers mostly just cause they seem to support animal welfare more (sorry, i know this was too long, i love this podcast though and it provoked alot of thoughts! it said "Philosophize this" and so i did) I bet all of this uncertainty might be solved by Artificial Intelligence.. a forsee an impartial, computerized government and policing system that just calculates what does the most good and is most fair for the most amount of people, because humans are too biased and prone to selfishness and tribalism. Save us soon A.I.!
I wonder if there's will always be a kind of fundamental battle between the youth who want change that's better adapted to a changed world.. and the older people in power who are just trying to hold on to what they got (who can blame them).. i know this is a false dichotomy and its not that simple but that seems like a common pattern.. and being 40 years old i can sympathize with both groups.. you could see the older people as selfish willfully ignorant curmudgeons trying to hold onto their wealth and outdated way of life.. or the young as arrogant little monsters who dont care about the old and want them out of the way screaming "why dont you just fade away".. i heard some millenials refer to covid as "the boomer remover" and laughing... (unrelated) There's this other Podcast i like called Jocko Podcast.. and he coined a term called "Extreme Ownership" that is a belief that one should "own" the circumstances of their life so that they will feel empowered to take action and do something about it.. and he sits across the table from a black man whom he always kind of dominates (and the show is in black and white).. and they argue sometimes about how much ownership an individual has of their life, and the black guy tends to argue that individuals are less responsible for their circumstances.. isnt that how it seems to go too? The more advantaged/more powerful seem to want to claim credit, ownership and that people have authorship of their own destiny.. the disadvantaged/less empowered/less fortunate are more inclined to blame and believe less in their own control or sole responsibility.. WEIRD! its all so weird..
Sometimes i think its unavoidable, that everyone is vying for power, for themselves and the groups they are a part of (if they're not now they will be or they should be).. a powerful way is to do it overtly with oppression and threat of violence.. a less powerful way is trying to guilt or display intellectual superiority.. but it seems like everyone does it.. sometimes it seems like Repulicans represent "The Powerful" oppressing etc, and Liberals as the "less powerful" guilting and using intellectual snobbery.. the Republicans coerce members of the less powerful with the lure that they too can be like the powerful.. and the Liberals coerce Republicans to relent power with guilt and intellectual elitism.. that seems to be a game that goes on... i got it all figured out :D You know what else is weird.. if you look at Trump Tweets, if they're ProTrump their picture will likely be a Macho Looking Guy or a woman who's pretty in a cheap kinda way.. if they're AntiTrump their picture will likely be a minority, or nerdy or homo looking person.. its Weird! :O try it, its usually that way! :O
Dood, learn to separate indoctrination from reality.
How does Foucault make sense of instances in the modern world where sovereign-power is used concurrent to bio-power, eg in USA police brutality is still an issue for identifiable communities, but those very same communities are quite obviously also exercising/subjected to bio-power?
There's something of the snake oil salesman in Foucault.
@@anthonyconde7604 I agree to a point, but their is nothing new in much of his observations about the fundamental functioning of power. He takes a simple, even simplistic, idea and dresses it up with some juicy, lurid historical customs and practices...in language dependent upon, and replete with, jargon. This jargon...isnt thought...its a substitute for thinking...here I plug in this phrase....here I can plug in this phrase...and so on without doing any work. I'm not saying he isn't worth reading. But...
Control the narrative, and thus control the behavior. We have been in such a petri dish a thousand times over beginning in 2020--while trying to keep our wits about us.
ok so ive listened to a bunch of your podcasts and 👍. besides that i took 1 phil course in college and skimmed some books.
foucault has a reputation so i was expecting to be hit with a "they dont think it be like it is but it do". perhaps it was not so back then but today, when speaking about science, there is a categorical/qualitative difference between social "sciences" (aka soft) and "just" sciences (aka hard, aka math/physics/chem). i mean i suppose they are the "arbiters of knowledge" in their domains, but im not sure how much influence their opinion has over the way scientists think. e.g., for me personally, if a psychologist/economist says something, i will usually default to being skeptical that it is a robust, generalizable, and overall useful claim. i guess they had to earn that reputation over time so maybe during foucault's time they had that power. id say i enjoyed structuralism (de saussure, barthes) more than foucault. not saying foucault is bad ofc, he hit me with some good ideas - expanded my thinking.
The social/human sciences were Foucault's main point of reference here - he is interested in physics, for example, but he's generally thinking about psychology, sociology, criminology, political science, biology as well insofar as it crosses between soft/hard sciences. I guess if you want to think about how much power they have, just ask yourself what you think about the history of punishment or sexuality and then read Foucault's books on those topics and see just how wrong you likely were.
❤😂🎉
This makes me think of wokeness and cancel culture. How people now constantly police each other and cancel whatever is deemed politically incorrect, and because of that only allow a narrow view of the world. Also how knowledge now a days is spread and created thru social media.
"Deemed politically incorrect", "narrow view of the world",, do you have any more specific examples of what you're talking about?
Let a man get a reputation as an early riser and he can stay in bed til noon, mark twain i think
He did say "its easier to fool all the people than it is to convince one person that they've been fooled"
06:05 archaeology is history bruh
Questions the dominant narrative around sexuality and the structures of oppression contained in them...dies of AIDS. Meanwhile, current society is dying of irony
So the way you die has some relevance to the ideas you had when you were alive?
Also, who do you think Foucault is saying is doing the "oppressing"?