Foucault Explained Simply 

Next, learn about Foucault's theory of the PANOPTICON 📚👉ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RbllEmx0WPU.html

Criminally underrated RU-vid channel

French native speaker here. Everything I read and heard from Foucault was crystal clear to me... Contrary to (deliberately) abstruse thinkers like Heidegger, Derrida or Lacan, I've always found Foucault's French fluid, elegant and easy to understand. Go figure.

I think that Foucault was pretty much spot on. No one gets it 100%, but guy nailed a lot of it

Watched for philosophy, subbed for Snorlax. Great work sir!

I thought about the definition of Focault about power, and I felt as well as the physics concept of heat, "heat is the thermal energy transferred between systems due to a temperature difference", heat modifies bodies, etc It's just a thought.

Love your video’s. I feel your enthusiasm. Keep up the good work!

What a brilliant way of grasping such nuanced ideas of Foucault, wonderful work. Waiting for more videos coming from you ❤

Very useful video. Thank you. I am using Foucault to analyse school curriculum design in the UK.

This is one of the most explanatory videos on Foucault's theory of power and subjectivity (especially for the uninitiated)

Great stuff, highly appreciated, thanks!

Perfect!! So helpful, thank you✨️🫶

Fantastic video, thank you!

Enjoyed how you crystallized this

Very informative.. Great job! Keep it up dude

Exceptionally well done synopsis.

Currently studing it in my founding degree in France. Your video came up handy !!

I find Foucault's approach to power to be very convincing. He considered power to be decentralized and within social networks. This explains why collective power exists and why power is not contained within institutions. The fact that we can always draw on collective power, but also the fact that institutions use power, both evidence his ideas about power. Sociologically speaking, it seems pretty valid to identify power as being identifiable through outward behavior and actions effecting actions. Power being possessable isn't true because you can't really possess anything abstract.

Love the vid! Keep up the good work!

Thank you for this video, helped me a lot for my University class. - Watching from Belgium

Thank you for your informative videos. Very fun to watch. Would you please make some about Friedrich Nietzsche. Thank you.

Yes you can go through life and allow circumstances to make you a subject. But what it means to be human is to think for yourself and make yourself into a moral being.

Splendid stuff as always - thank you!

Thanks for your work.... from Korea.

Well, we all know is what pop culture says, power is not very welll distributed.... however under its light, we all shine on....

1:40 Your a human. A human being in reality is a human being. Receiving lessons in human being doesn't change the reality of being a human being. It's not more complicated than that is someone pretending they don't understand something right in front of them that all can see.

I gotta say - present company excluded, but the college professors I had absolutely ZERO respect for were all Foucault disciples. To a person. They were constantly pushing him and his particular brand of postmodernism.

he totally missed it with one word: secrecy. without acknowledging how people rule governments and institutions through secrecy, without acknowledging how control is a very serious game, he's just part of the problem. he perpetuates his own brand of illusions.

"Foucault is hard to understand", really? He is the most eloquent philosopher to ever pick up a pen, unfortunately. Every word and idea builds in your mind. I love him.

I'm with Snorlax. I found his argument very persuasive. He told me not to tell anyone what he told me, sorry...

l've been asking myself from the very beginning of What is power when l started to study Foucault core theories till so far l leave no answers ...

THANK YOU

but you missed the link between power and language/discourse that is central in Foucault...

thank you.

Great video

Power, swings....

Hello! Some of your videos are very well done! Can I repost them on China’s bilibili? I want more people to see it. The original author and website will be marked clearly! Thanks

Kicking in open doors, is what F*ckoult is to me. #redundant

He was a little hurt boy, screaming at the people who took advantage of him as a boy

I share Foucault's skepticism about "collective power". "Felt experience" informs sentiment and nothing else. Even when two people share the same perspective with "felt experience", it only serves to bolster their sentiments further. It ignores instituted biases (like those Foucault was critical of) and serves little value in understanding the broader reality. It's purely qualitative, in the worst possible way.

Great man

Zach Woods plays Jared on Silicon Valley and trust me when I say: I WOOD. Edit: he has to stay in character as Jared though, thats the deal.

Panopticon, Skilletopticon I DO NOT MIND. JUST TELEPATHICALLY PUT IT IN MY BRAIN IM HAVING A HARD TIME LISTENING OOH THAT DID GET BETTER YUM

Can you do a video on Foucault and neoliberalism please as I’m doing a dissertation on how socially harmful neoliberalism is so in my lit review i am writing on foucaults views on neoliberalism

So "Power" is almost like "Cold"... Cold doesn't exist, it's an absence of heat. Power doesn't exist, it's relative to groups you're discussing

Power feels fluid WHEN A SOCIETY IS THRIVING... Give that one a - scary - thought lol

As a parent of a 4yr old that's really coming into her own as a person, every single day is full of power struggles! And I think it's important we stay firm to teach where lines are

Subject as in, person subject to state power.

Good vid. My feelings are that Foucault is correct and your own thoughts are incorrect. Allow me to elaborate. When we, the subjugated, operate, we operate from given assumptions that mostly have never been tested, I.e we operate within rules without them ever been proved. Most ppl don’t break laws, the small group that does and does so repeatedly may find what those laws are actually about ; the relationships between institutions and subjects and why and how those operate; there is power, a need to control something within those dynamics; Without that interplay you are merely dealing with the idea of power, and one does a poor job of understanding it without the interplay. Foucault is saying that we understand Power only in the interplay; the veil comes away when we resist in the relationship as it were; where we come face to face with the rule, the rule maker etc From afar, with and under all of our assumptions, we don’t really understand power for what it is. We assign an idea of it to institutions generally. But that idea doesn’t exist in a certain reality; meaning an institution isn’t a living real thing , it’s an idea. But in the interplay you see the motivations behind that idea, and that’s the attempt at power and subjugation of its subjects as it were. It’s not easy to explain. As you know. But I suspect you don’t fully dig Foucault, and I don’t mean to say that’s a shortcoming on your part. You simply haven’t rattled against our societal limits enough, which isn’t a bad thing in a way. Survival machines aren’t naturally inclined to hit repeatedly danger zones as it were.

You have Foucault’s definition on subjects wrong. Foucault speaks about subjects in the sense of someone who is subject to one in power. The way a King has his subjects. The citizens of his kingdom who subject to him.

How to be a domesticated human: Rewards, difficulties and what you can expect if you go wild.

“Subjects” are not “people” and “objects” are not “things” in Foucault’s system of thought, as you incorrectly stated at the start of this video. Foucault is using the language of existentialism in a social context, but he is using words like “subject” with fidelity to the sense in which the existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre used the term. The subject is the separate self, or even more to the point, the illusion of the separate self. Foucault argues that subject-making institutions oppress us precisely to the degree that they indoctrinate us to accept the notion that each of us is reducible to an individual subject. At that scale, each individual subject by itself lacks the power to resist the objects or institutions that define each of us down to a single, isolated point. Against the existential threat posed by anonymous institutions and their seemingly vast resources, subjects surrender their subjectivity, without so much as a single philosophical shot having been fired. And that’s how an individual is effectively oppressed by the state or the corporation. We volunteer for it, because we have been trained to be afraid of ghosts.

re - the critiques of foucault, you mention that his idea that power is fluid feels untrue, and that for most people power feels concentrated within the hands of the few (hard agree). you also covered how he is skeptical of people having power when they act collectively, but you counter that social movements *have* actually changed things - then isn't that an example of power being fluid? power is imbued into what we collectively choose to believe in, and has moved from institutions of white colonial male power to more democratic and diverse ways forward as seen with suffrage, civil rights and pride. also foucault foucaulted himself with that one, if he thought power was fluid but social movements have none.

Are we just ignoring the elephant in the room?

Foucault doesn't need to be explained. Just read his works. It's all bullshit, which is why all bullshitters love him.

That is a weberian definition of power.

He was a Nonce.

I don't know who this guy is, but I'm a post-modernist philosopher on X. After I post something lengthy, I ask AI to “summarize and analyze key points based on merit and accuracy and elaborate on the philosophy used.” It keeps telling me I am using the same philosophy as this guy and someone named Nietzsche. I always say that religion is a tool of the elite, used to establish culture (the rules we live by) and maintain existing power structures (e.g., Judeo-Christianity). I also tell people that historical truths and narratives are dynamic and serve the interests of ruling factions. I emphasize that morality is relative, and that things we consider "taboo" are only taboo because they harm ruling interests. This logic can lead to many uncomfortable truths and realizations. I always tell people that everything just is; we interpret and give meaning to reality. Additionally, I argue that science is not always absolute and has changed over time to serve the interests of ruling factions. These are just some of the things off the top of my head.

You have to go back further, like the bramens did, I will try to give you an example. The way you identify with knowledge and language, becomes the next generations historical inheritance, this has gone on for thousands of years, it has become autonomous, when we are born it creates an identity you call you. It is the entirety of man's thoughts Feelings and experiences past down from generations for the status quo of society, I say this is me, I use knowledge in the form of a language, I have no other way of saying this is me, in the same way I say I am thinking, but when I think all that you see there in your thoughts that is this same knowledge, this knowledge controls every aspect of my life. These thoughts this knowledge, is made of words, that's how I know what those thoughts are, I must use that language to know what I am looking at, these words are not mine, there a copy borrowed from somebody else, and I have to use them to know I exist. There's no end to this type of thing, I tried to put it in context, but it just comes out as gibba jabbo, because it's outside of the experiencing structure.

I am not impressed at all--.

Sorry i came to calss all fucked up professor

A bit cringe no preface Foucault with him liking to pretend things because he feels reality is too burdensome to his imagination. Maybe give people some REAL understanding of where Foucault starts from.