You wanted an unemotional argument, I gave you one.
[size=85]
No. Just stop right there. I gave you a perfectly rational rationale. His entire basis is deconstructing the conceptual distinction of reason and madness (through the use of a tool called the materialist dialectic of history, which Marx first developed by inverting the Hegelian propaedeutic: I go over that in the three self-excerpts at the end of this post; suffice to say that all Leftists, in one way or another, use this same inverted dialectic to level the field of discourse and make actual dialogue impossible, just as critical race theorists use it to transform the idea of racism into something so nebulous it can be applied to everyone and everything) to the point that neither mean anything anymore and have become entirely ambiguous, and then he formulates the argument that every possible law or moral evaluation amounts to an unjustifiable imposition of logos and reason on human nature. He rejects the idea that there can be any real social function in a law like don’t fuck kids because of how he’s framed this polarity between what he calls madness and reason, and it’s a polarity that no longer makes any sense. It’s like how modern Leftists define racism in such a nebulous way that it allows them to call everyone racist for whatever reason they want, that is what deconstructionism, is. It’s not my problem if you can’t fucking get it, but don’t tell me I didn’t, immediately after leaving my jokes, provide an objective statement about it. This shit is pissing me off, fuck off. Of course, if you accept Foucault’s deconstruction of ‘reason’ as a concept, you can just tell me that anything I possibly say is an irrational imposition of logos on discourse, reducing all dialogue to a mindless game of power.
^ Foucault inherited this from Marx, who did it first. His concept of the species-essence was a deconstruction of the modes of capitalist relation which allowed him to formulate a specious argument in which all division of labor, like that exampled by industrial society, was an arbitrary and therefor unjustifiable imposition of power. I elaborate this at great length in my own books.
As Marx’s use of this materialist dialectic deconstructed and rendered illegible all legitimate social hierarchy and division of labor, so Foucault’s renders unreadable all legitimate distinction between immoral and moral acts, even on obvious issues like child predation being evil, just as the feminist use of the materialist dialectic between male-female relations reduces all gender discourse to an omnipresent patriarchy within which it is not possible to say anything at all without being branded a defender of the patriarchy. Do you not see what this “philosophy” has done? It has turned all discourse into a game of power and made philosophy impossible, made moral values impossible to delimit, even on issues we all instinctively know are wrong.
So as Marx applied this inverted dialectic to master-slave distinction,* so Foucault to madness-reason, so critical gender theorists to man-woman, etc.-- all to the same end; to the end of making the discourse of the Logos unreadable, thereby reducing all dialogue to a game of power and making it impossible to defend any laws or moral values as anything more than arbitrary impositions of power, even moral values as obvious as ‘sex with kids is wrong’.
- The ‘class struggle’[/size]
There’s no emotion or ad hominem in any of that.