CRITIQUE of TRUTH in Nietzsche and Foucault

Everyone talks about TRUTH, but do we know the history of truth?

What do you mean by TRUTH? Please comment below the video so I can enter into a conversation with you.

In this video I discuss the critique of truth in Nietzsche and Foucault. This is an Immersion experience in Nietzsche and Foucault via videos. Comment and ask here on Youtube, and in the next videos I will answer your questions and comments, and bring more questions. Subscribe to the channel to be notified of upcoming videos.

Podcasts:
Podcasts on Deezer, Spotify, Apple Podcasts

TEXTS this video was based on:

[ericcrawford]

Truh as an abstract concept is something I never thought about. I'm learning, but maybe not, everything could be a lie

[Badabing]

Hi, I have an assessment task for uni about these two. The question is as follows
In 2000 words,
Compare and contrast Friedrich Nietzsche's genealogy of morality with Michel Foucault's views on power. To what extent does Nietzsche provide the template for Foucault's own critique of power, and to what extent is his position a discourse of the type Foucault characterises as racist
Do you have any tips for me?

[linagundam]

First time watching your videos. It's just awesome the way to expose those ideas of truth here. Thank you very much!

[jceter]

What aI get is that truth, as a niversal sturcture does exist onlly in its pure form, which is, devoid of any thing but just the concept of it. Any atent to turth threfore, is a fabrication gear to specific means and it may stand a time period.

[markasp]

"CRITIQUE of TRUTH"
<- is a nonsense idea; it's self-contradictory. In order to have a critique at all one have to must have a mental picture of something better. Q: What do the decontructors of truth have, as their mental picture of "something better"? A: Nothing, at all, or something so woolly it may as well be just a metaphor. Nietzsche doesn't have a critique because he has nothing to progress to. Nietzsche has his "noble barbarians" to regress back to; but they are a myth, parable, or metaphor for something else. We cannot progress, or regress to foggy ambiguous goals. "Critique of truth" plays with words and overloaded metaphors. Q: What happens when we overload ideas? A: We just get more ambiguity. Q: So the people piling more ambiguity onto top of ambiguity will be the same leading us to clarify our ideas, or to "think more deeply"? No.