Foucault on Sexuality and Identity 

Confession central to sexuality and identity. Confession by these groups. Confession includes speaking one’s deepest desires and vocalising what’s ‘fundamentally’ you. Where: on talk shows/ used to be in church. You become who you are by talking about it, via this act of confession. Identity construction occurs via confession, Foucault says. Sexuality seems to have replaced the idea of ‘soul’ from previous generations/ centuries - hysterical woman - masturbating child - perverse adult - Malthusian couple

Brilliant explanation of a rather heady subject. Thank you. And what a quote!

can someone comment the exact quote (the last one)? I do not seem to find it anywhere.

Why is bill burr doing philosophy

"You become who you are by talking about it" is in the part of the venn diagram where Foucault and Butler overlap.

Where is the whole convo?

Is that QuestGrunny?

Re: the language that serves to control Re: confessing deepest desires Re: confessing your identity Re: sexuality vs. the soul Re: the language that serves to control -- What about the language to _express,_ e.g. to express ideas and objective realities and truths (for instance, the moral goodness, or other transcendentals, is not relative] Re: confessing deepest desires -- Strange view on confession: viewing sins as 'deepest desires'? 🤔 My sins aren't my 'deepest desires', the _deepest_ desire is God. Sins are the desires of our fallible and not properly ordered nature, but ultimately, they're nothing in comparison to the deepest longing for the communion with God. They (temptations and sins) even often serve as cheap imitations of that highest good, otherwise they wouldn't be attractive. Our soul is so created and disposed, that at our deepest level, it's God and the good that it longs for. Re: confessing your identity -- What about just venting out, processing one's emotions? That's why people talk and share. _Expressing_ what's inside to vent out and regulate emotions, gain a perspective. Thinking it's the process of _creating_ an identity is nominalist, as if there's no intrinsic identity/sense of being, but only what's being socially constructed. There's INDEED something to it when we talk about constructing the narrative of one's story, (e.g. what one pays attention to, what one omits, can tell a lot how one wants to present themselves). BUT it's still _expressing_ and performing/presenting to others' what's inside (the self-image, the intention to self-represent, etc.), not the process of being constructed through the act of speaking alone. Re: sexuality vs. the soul [this is informed by the Catholic theology of the body perspective] The sexuality is, actually, huge a reduction of love. It's love we all truly yearn for. Human sexuality (particularly: human marriage) is so created, that it ought to symbolize, be an icon of, the communion of the soul with God. The marriage of the Church/soul with Christ the Bridegroom. Therefore, our sexual sphere is a sphere that is not only about animalistic drives, but is linked with the 'heart'/soul of the most intimate physical connection with the other (in the holy matrimony) and with the mutual self-gift. The communion in the flesh of the spouses is their 'tent of meeting', and the intimacy of that connection is a sign for higher, spiritual communion of the soul with God. But in ordered to be that, it has to be properly ordered, be the fruit of love, not of lust (therefore the institution of monogamous marriage). If we let go of this aspect (of the mutual self-gift and the communion of two persons), what is left is hedonistic drive for pleasure, and it's then in the domain of lust, of disordered passions. It looses the sight of God. At the same time, the drives remain strong, and and soul yearn for connection deep down. Focusing on sexuality alone, especially on disordered sexuality, becomes then the _inversion_ of what God has meant as a purpose for a human person, and a mockery of the human's life purpose (which is to lift our souls to God and perfect our fallen natures, not behave like animals determined by their instincts and drives).

do they think gender identity was created in recent history? im a homer fan, and i don't think man has changed much in three thousand years..do other mammals not have performative gender roles? thank you

1st ;b