Gary Gutting (1942–2019)

É uma boa e simpática introdução, bastante compreensível e ajuda a romper meu preconceito com um autor que, possivelmente devido a seguidores incautos, acabou ligado a ideias em formulação um pouco infelizes (excessiva generalização na noção de episteme, discurso fácil redutivo a poder e dominação, crítica raza da racionalidade como subordinada a interesses). Dito isso, ainda assim, talvez sejam assuntos demais (a arte e a libertação de categorias, os marginalizados como show more posição (micro) política, a loucura como categoria histórica e o modo como era pensada, em relação aos regimes que instituíam a relação esperada perante os loucos, os expedientes de confinamento, o pensamento sobre a punição, a natureza contextualizada dos conceitos e a ligação deles com disputas de poder, o sujeito como parte de mecanismos de sujeição, a história da sexualidade e seus planos, o cuidado de si a partir dos gregos, a transição para uma sexualidade cristã a partir dos estóicos) para um aprofundamento rápido e que pudesse me capturar. De resto, não sei quando vou pegar o Vigiar e Punir pra ler. Tenho interesse. show less

Foucault is one of those writers/philosophers/thinkers/activists that you more-or-less have to be familiar with, one way or the other, like it or not. And his writings and interviews make this... frustrating. I started [b:The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences|119561|The Order of Things An Archaeology of the Human Sciences|Michel Foucault|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1486658551l/119561._SY75_.jpg|115111] only to abandon it because show more his writing is obscure, obtuse, verbose, inaccessible, etc. I read the [b:The Chomsky-Foucault Debate: On Human Nature|12614|The Chomsky-Foucault Debate On Human Nature|Noam Chomsky|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1331453083l/12614._SX50_.jpg|14898] and came away thinking him kind of an asshole, kind of amoral, kind of full of himself, etc.

It's good to know that even academics, ones who clearly appreciate much of what Foucault has to say, feel the same way. That said, reading the 'Very Short Introduction' makes me think I might need to go back and tackle some of his works.

It also makes me feel like much of what Foucault supposedly said/thought/showed/etc. is misattributed and/or misunderstood, both by those who hate "post-modern" and those who claim for themselves the title/mantle of "critical", "social justice"/"anti"-injustice, and, yes, "post-modern". This also makes me think I might need to go back and force myself to tackle some of this works.

Oh, if only I had 10 lifetimes to spend reading. Perhaps I will get to that. At the very least, this has prompted me to start looking for a more complete, less "Very Short" summary/discussion/textbook of Foucault's thought. show less

This book contains several invaluable editorial evaluations of the thinkers, their styles, and their projects by the author himself; however, these comments usually act as capstones marking the tail end of his summary of the ideas and their presentation, which is unfortunate since these are moments of lucid insight that deserve to be pulled out and discussed at the top of the discussion (at the outset).

12/14/21