Why did Foucault say madness does not exist, when I, a Bipolar 1, exist?
Why didn't he say that manic episode ruin a person?
He didn't even bring up the word "mania" in his books.
Why did Foucault say madness does not exist, when I, a Bipolar 1, exist?
Easy. He’s a hack.
>Pity me historian
Everyone has their own truth and no view is more valid than another and so even a bipolar schizophrenic or a troony is just a valid as Einstein
I don't fricking like this sentence. Why did you have to bundle schizos and trans folk together? One is a mental illness and the other is just a reorientation of the gender binary division.
>nobody is more valid than another
>but trans are more valid than schizophrenics
Idiots taking the bait.
Im diagnosed schizo and i find your sentence highly offensive,schizophrenia is a clinically proven condition while transgenderism is just a person playing pretend and denying reality itself as well as a deliberate perversion of God's design.
Repent and change your ways or perish.
Post neovegana
Bro I'm not A troon, someone just bamboozled me
>I don't fricking like this sentence
Sir, this is IQfy
>One is a mental illness while the other is also a mental illness.
What did he mean by this?
decent bait
that's true tho
Foucault was way to cynical for that. He believed capital Truth is a product of power. If a a bipolar schizophrenic troony insists "this is the way I am everybody who thinks different is transphobic" it's just another self interested power play. Ideas are weapons and so are appeals to truth. Foucault's way out of this is to go back to Nietzsche. Instead of structuring your life based truth, you live creatviely with no regard for normal morality like a true ubermenschen.
>He believed capital Truth is a product of power
and that's the what's currently poisoning western society, these post modernist 'philosophers' playing their linguistic games have clearly never interacted with the real world and had to deal with objective facts
>there is no absolute truth
>yes of course this statement is true, why do you ask?
Why does this count as philosophy?
How do you plan on getting to truth separate from the human experience?
>Everyone has their own truth and no view is more valid than another
objectively false
Read Kant.
yeah i have, and objective truth still exists, 'my own truth' is meaningless in the face of facts, let's say someone decides it's their own truth that you killed someone, let's say this is acted upon as if it's true, because hur dur it's their truth, and you go to jail for the rest of your life, facts are important, if you throw objective truth out the window you end up living in a dystopian hellscape, post modernist commie scum
This.
Subjective truth is real. Even that is subjective. Such meta-commentary.
gaylord. objective truth is real and the pursuit of subjective is the gayest shit one man can do. "o-oh you believe that? h-haha well it's all subjective after all" — extremely gay and submissive. there is objective manifestations of truth. don't (You) me for i have already won this argument against you in my mind.
OP here. I'm trans btw. Not that it matters.
you are basically controlled by psychology normativity.
you are pretty happy with it, so you really shouldnt complain about what foucault say. people everyday in everyplace are voluntarily and happily choosing to give his own ass so others can frick them. think about it.
He also said AIDS did not exist. See how that worked for the little homosexual
It was pretty common to not believe in AIDS at the time tho
ik your're baiting but transgenderism is also clinically proven
>ik your're baiting but transgenderism is also clinically proven
that doesn't mean anything, there are a million things 'clinically proven' that are not real.
Such as?
Where does he say madness does not exist?
Why has no one has yet replied to my question?
>Why didn't he say that manic episode ruin a person?
Because it doesn't. Don't believe it, Anon. WAGMI
>madness does not exist
>is a gay pedo rapist
I hate French "intellectuals"
Qrd on why foucault doesn't believe in madness? How would he explain someone with schizophrenia?
Foucault never said madness didn't exist. He wasn't interested in if madness existed or what the true cause of madness really was. He wasn't an anti-psychiatrist like Szasz, who thought mental illnesses didn't count as real medical diseaes, or the various Marxist psychiatrists who believed mental illness was caused by capitalism. Foucault was much more interested in rationality and reason, what does reason mean in our culture? As a concept, what does it do in society? Whose interests does it serve? He was more interested in social control and the role "madness" and "reason" play in controlling and manipulating people.
In the Middle Ages, melancholia was usually treated at home under the system of Galenic medicine, while "holy fools" were considered saintly and typically left alone. In Foucault's day, the mad were dumped into large asylums or special hospitals, locked away from the rest of society. How did this happen? Why? A running theme from the 17th century onward is that a rational, modern society had to be protected from "madness" and purified of anything abnormal or irrational behavior. What this effectively did was lay out a single "normal" way to behave, act, and think in public that people are unconsciously schooled to follow e.g. Soviet psychiatrists diagnosing dissidents as mentally ill because only an insane person would oppose socialism. Lots of behaviors that had been tolerated by society suddenly become mental illnesses or paraphilias, and in most cases this worked to the advantage of governments, intellectuals, or powerful people generally.
If you were to ask Foucault if he thought bipolar disorder existed, he'd probably tell you it's not his business and he can't answer it. Similarly, with AIDS, Foucault was less interested in the existence of the disease, than the way AIDS prevention was used to reign in the sexual revolution and the way gays initially responded by telling people it didn't exist. On the one hand you have government and medical authorities trying to control people in the name of public health, on the other hand you have LGBT activists trying to control their own gay community by adopting a denialist stance simply because AIDS damaged the credibility of their extreme free love ideology which, of course, could never be wrong. Later they would switch from denying the existence of AIDS as a anti-gay conspiracy to claiming gays as victims and laying blame on the authorities, totally ignoring their own culpability. In both cases, the public health authorities and gay activists had their own ideas about normal or good behavior they wanted to impose on people and both used medicine, conspiracy theories etc. to do it.
Very good post by the rare literate denizen of this board. Thank you.
As he says, Madness and Civilization is not a book about psychiatry as such but rather a book about an avenue of power in modern societies.
>He was more interested in social control and the role "madness" and "reason" play in controlling and manipulating people.
Reason is whatever the state says.
Thank you for your effort.
Do you also know whether Focault opted any alternatives or possible changes to counter such workings. Or had he rather concluded that it’s innate to power and it’s self sustaining lifecycle?
>Why did Foucault say madness does not exist
He said the same thing about AIDS.
Look where that got him
He literally has a mania chapter in an early book you pseud
It's hard to disagree with some of his views about doctors tbh
He NEVER said madness doesn't exist, he never ever doubted the objective factors of insanity. It is the works of americans who distorted his works - and the entire anti psychiatry field for that matter - that led illiterate morons such as you to think he was on some neurotic bullshit. that americans have utterly dismantled the anti psychiatric effort is not foucault's responsability.
frick americans
OP is clearly ESL though.
Identifying with labels and psychiatric diagnoses is for midwits. Sorry anon. good luck with that.
The madness is to think that madness exists, that it is an alienation from reality as opposed to too great a superimposition of reality on the senses and the mind. The mind of the acute madman can potentially signify anything, not in some sort of conjectural or hypothetical sense, but in the certain sense that the senses themselves are constantly being overwhelmed with an empirical truth, from which majorities themselves are alienated and not vice versa. A 'madmen' upset by too great and too clear a truth is a veritable fact of nature, and such a fact is not at all devoid of reason, not even by the standards of bourgeois sanity. So I ask, trust not the 'madmen' in your midst, to be sure, but also put aside the mistrust from your inner mind, and consider deeply and without prejudice the uncountable truths in your midst which you surely do not see, but which would take and depend on a different sort of madness, bourgeois madness, to deny, in their plenitude, a priori. Let us give the 'madman' his due. Yes, to be sure, he's mad, as are we all—the difference is that his is one devoid of recourse to any power, while otherwise overwhelmed for what is for him too great a truth, and indeed such truths are everywhere and within everyone's nature. On the other hand, our madness, the madness of rational and self-controlled man, is the madness that represses itself, that sacrifices itself for the sake of state power and its economic overclass, an act hostile to ourselves in so many regards, but from which we obtain a hypnotic and narcotic delight by auto-identification: it is an aggression against itself, but also by this selfsame manifest logic a fetish and its supreme erotic attachment.
When psychology was taken over by the Behaviorists people like Foucault (Deleuze, Lacan, etc) cannibalized the philosophical underpinnings of what previously existed as a reaction against it. Read up on B.F. Skinner and their bullshit makes more sense.
Aside, we now have a psychopharmacological paradigm in psychiatry wherein a medical doctor uses the DSM V (in North America) to attach a label to someone and then medicates them accordingly. You can develop a useful criticism by reading Foucault in relation to this but it's obvious he takes things too far. For psychologists the dominant school is cognitivism and there's a bit of a crisis involving the movement toward applied neuroscience while subdisciplines go full moronic ideologue mode (e.g. Social Psychology).
is it because he was an evil pedo intent on destroying western civilization ?
People with bipolar 1 could have been berserkers. It’s kind of like being a werewolf, unironically.
>a Bipolar 1
what is one of those
>well you see the doctors formulated this long list of
doesn't matter, it's not Real
he was mad himself