In this podcast, Jacques 'Derridevil' Derrida challenges Michel Foucault on the topic of metaphysics. After a crippling blow, Foucault is frozen out. The podcast explores the critiques of Foucault and the legacy of Descartes, the relationship between reason, madness, and power, the complexity of language in political philosophy, and the limitations of binary thinking.
Foucault's framing of madness as the silent other and his romanticization of unreason fails to truly challenge the institutional realities that exploit and marginalize those experiencing mental illness.
Foucault's project is contradictory, as it relies on the same language of order and reason that it seeks to challenge.
Derrida questions the effectiveness of solely writing about the injustices faced by marginalized groups and argues that it may not lead to meaningful change.
The tension between giving voice to marginalized groups and avoiding the reductive traps of essentialism and metaphysics remains a significant challenge.
Deep dives
Foucault's critique of reason and madness
Foucault's book, 'History of Madness,' aims to give a voice to madness and challenge the binary between reason and madness. However, Derrida argues that in doing so, Foucault falls into the trap of doing metaphysics and perpetuating the same oppressive structures he seeks to critique. Derrida questions the efficacy of writing an archeology of madness and argues that Foucault's framing of madness as the silent other and his romanticization of unreason fails to truly challenge the institutional realities that exploit and marginalize those experiencing mental illness.
The problem with Foucault's method
Derrida highlights the issues with Foucault's method of writing history and archeology. He points out that Foucault's attempt to give madness a voice is paradoxical, as it ultimately silences madness by subjecting it to a knowledge structure. Derrida argues that Foucault's project is contradictory, as it relies on the same language of order and reason that it seeks to challenge. He also critiques Foucault's essentialist approach and his failure to adequately consider the material analyses and power dynamics that shape knowledge and power structures.
Foucault's activism and its limitations
While Foucault's work on madness brings attention to the mistreatment of those experiencing mental illness, Derrida raises concerns about the limitations of Foucault's activism. Derrida questions the effectiveness of solely writing about the injustices faced by marginalized groups and argues that it may not lead to meaningful change. He challenges the idea that one can ever fully speak for the subaltern or voiceless, as it inevitably involves silencing others within that group. Derrida calls into question the ability of philosophical texts to truly address and dismantle oppressive power structures.
The philosophical and political implications
The debate between Foucault and Derrida highlights the philosophical and political implications of discussing reason, madness, and marginalized groups. By criticizing Foucault's method and its potential limitations, Derrida raises important questions about the role of philosophy in activism and promoting social change. The tension between giving voice to marginalized groups and avoiding the reductive traps of essentialism and metaphysics remains a significant challenge. The discussion also touches on the power dynamics and institutional structures involved in the study of knowledge and power.
The critique of Foucault's project and the genealogical transition
Foucault acknowledges the failure of his own project and eventually gives it up, leading to a genealogical transition.
The danger of binary thinking and the need to question origins
Derrida critiques the binary thinking prevalent in Western thought and argues that it is important to question the origins of these binaries and the assumptions they entail.
The limitation of political implications and potential paralysis
The deconstructive approach, while valuable, can hinder practical action and lead to paralysis when it comes to political engagement. The focus on deconstructing binaries and destabilizing concepts may make it difficult to take action or form coherent political stances.
The Year is 1963 and our Versus Series continues with Fight Night Round 2, in which a young challenger, Jacques 'Derridevil' Derrida, comes at Dr. Archaeology himself, Michel Foucault, accusing him of committing the cardinal cosmological sin: METAPHYSICS. After a sound pounding through the first few pages, Derridevil lands a crippling blow, that Foucault's reading of Descartes was "naive," enough for Foucault to freeze him out for the next 20 years. Tune in next week for Foucault's long-awaited defense from 15 years later...
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode