Skip to main content

THREE ELEMENTS OF MORALS FOR MICHEL FOUCAULT

🔵 The following passages are taken from a not very widely known interview with Michel Foucault, containing some of the most crucial statements by him on his stance on morals.


"In a sense, I am a moralist, insofar as I believe that one of the tasks, one of the meanings of human existence—the source of human freedom—is never to accept anything as definitive, untouchable, obvious, or immobile. No aspect of reality should be allowed to become a definitive and inhuman law for us."


"We have to rise up against all forms of power—but not just power in the narrow sense of the word, referring to the power of a government or of one social group over another: these are only a few particular instances of power."


"Power is anything that tends to render immobile and untouchable those things that are offered to us as real, as true, as good."


"This doesn’t mean that one must live in an indefinite discontinuity. But what I mean is that one must consider all the points of fixity, of immobilization, as elements in a tactics, in a strategy—as part of an effort to bring things back into their original mobility, their openness to change."


"I was telling you earlier about the three elements in my morals. They are (1) the refusal to accept as self-evident the things that are proposed to us; (2) the need to analyze and to know, since we can accomplish nothing without reflection and understanding—thus, the principle of curiosity; and (3) the principle of innovation: to seek out in our reflection those things that have never been thought or imagined. Thus: refusal, curiosity, innovation."


This interview with Michel Foucault, titled “Power, Moral Values, and the Intellectual” dates back to November 3, 1980. According to Stuart Elden, “because it was published after Foucault’s death, it was deemed to be a ‘posthumous publication’ and therefore not included in ‘Dits et écrits,‘” a compilation of Foucault’s shorter writings in French. It remains one of Foucault’s lesser-known interviews.


In it, Foucault speaks with then UC Berkeley  graduate student Michael Bess. Bess is now a professor at Vanderbilt University. Foucault distances himself from some common misconceptions about his work. Namely, that he’s an amoral anarchist (fun fact: Noam Chomsky once referred to Foucault as the most amoral person he’s ever met).

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Ben Shapiro is Wrong About BLM

If Ben Shapiro really wants answers to his condemnations of BLM, he should start by reading a few books, and then some. For example, he can find all of the answer's he's looking for in: Slavery By Another Name , by Douglas Blackmon, which shows how "thousands of African Americans were pulled back into forced labor with shocking force and brutality," right up until the 1970s, when I was still in grade school. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness , by Civil Rights litigator and legal scholar, Michelle Alexander, which explains how "mass incarceration" under the ruse of a War on Drugs, has effectively created a caste system that is as pronounced in America today as it was in the Jim Crow south, if not more. Ghosts of Jim Crow , which was written by Constitutional Law Professor, F. Michael Higgenbotham, which explains in great detail how "the shadows of Jim Crow era laws and attitudes continue to perpetuate insidious, ...

Father Mike's Omniscience About Transgenderism

The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and how people think. Gregory Batson I f my perception doesn't match up with reality, it's not reality that has to change, it's my perception.   Fr. Mi ke Schmitz Despite the ever growing mountain of evidence about the nature of transgenderism, Fr. Mike Schmitz simply refuses to change his perception. And that's because his "perception," is not only based on nothing but his "beliefs," but because selling those "beliefs" is his one and only job! The problem, if he were truly trying to follow in the footsteps of Christ, is he would stop trying to sell people what he "believes" is the truth, and he would try to actually start trying to FIND THE TRUTH instead.  NOT DOING SO, however, is simply an act of his own spiritual pride, and nothing else. WHY DO CHRISTIANS PREFER THEIR BELIEFS TO THE TRUTH?  Probably because th...

The Height of Arrogance of Christian Humility

 "To think that the ruler of the universe will run to my assistance and bend the laws of nature for me is the height of arrogance. That implies that everyone else (such as the opposing football team, driver, student, parent) is de -selected, unfavored by God, and that I am special, above it all." Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: FFRF, 1992), p. 109. What could be more arrogant than to believe in miracles? To believe that the supreme ruler of the universe has not only bent the laws of nature by which everyone else is bound, but that such a ruler did so as a special favor to you, and also as a special message and invitation to you, which that ruler intentionally withholds from everyone else.  Even the person who believes they know something is a miracle believes that their knowledge of miracles is itself a special knowledge, amounting to a kind of miracle in and of itself, that the God who performed the miracle bestows to his chosen ...