Episode 123 ... Michel Foucault pt. 3 - Power

Get more:

Find the podcast:

Be social:

Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂

[amnasahli]

I am so happy to find your show. Thank you for the amazing content

[anuvasudeva]

Best YouTube series on post modern philosophers I have come across. Thank You.

[stevemiller]

The only YouTube notifications i get excited about!!

[ibrahimataerdogan]

Like always you are very clear on demonstrating the subject again. I really enjoyed whole 3 parts of Michel Foucault. Thanks...

[codyevans]

This show really puts me in a calm state fantastic videos really

[robertstoute]

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.

[Kushiava]

So glad I discovered this podcast.

Keep up the good work!

[nightoftheworld]

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..

[m.olsenbelhaj]

Very clear and many eksempel. Keep up the good work!

[cgsrtkzsytriul]

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.

[thethoughtexperience]

You are absolutely wonderful 👌 thank you for such amazing thoughts

[theloveofwisdom]

Hello Steven Wess, I would like to interview you on my podcast if possible. When are you available for an interview podcast?

[janikamahmud]

thank you so much, it really helps me a lot.

[johncart]

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.

[aal-e-ahmadhussain]

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?

[vohrtechs]

Despite having clicked the bell, I have missed parts one and two. Apologies, I will catch up!

[seanpatrickrichards]

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.!

[gabrielbatista]

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.

[christinemartin]

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.

[seanspicer]

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.