Vidmission | Positive Videos

Shredrlz (November 23, 2008 at 7:43 am)

well said

elliot1 (November 22, 2008 at 8:49 pm)

looks like chomsky got owned.

xpressivist (November 22, 2008 at 6:48 pm)

as i said before, foucault is already dead like his ideas. his 'history of sexuality i-iii' should be shelved as a work of fiction. it has no philosophical and scientific significance like the works of chomsky. i don't understand why many french philosophers and their confused followers love to entertain obscure ideas which chomsky correctly describes as "extremely pretentious...illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts...and a good deal of plain gibberish".

xpressivist (November 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm)

i intentionally called your hero (to whom you probably feed an almost religious faith as well) a fag because i have the right to do so. and he was indeed a fag. 'fag' is simply a slang for 'homosexual'. what's wrong in being a fag? i'm no fag and i have nothing against them (unless they come to me with it). if you think you're smart, you should have answered my questions below instead of calling me 'stupid' which is more offensive than my calling your tin-god a fag.

xpressivist (November 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm)

i intentionally called your hero (to whom you probably feed an almost religious faith as well) a fag because i have the right to do so. and he was a indeed a fag. 'fag' is simply a slang for 'homosexual'. what's wrong in being a fag? i'm no fag and i have nothing against them (unless they come to me with it). if you think you're smart, you should have answered my questions below instead of calling me 'stupid' which is more offensive than my calling your tin-god a fag.

lukasbizarria (November 22, 2008 at 11:39 am)

you need to understand Nietzsche's ideas before talking about Foucault man. Take a look at his interpretation about knowledge. Will help ya to make a better picture about the French's ideas.
and about this idiot that said Foucault is interesting because he is a fag, congratulations for the amazing stupidity you've shown in a very small number of lines. must be some scientific idealist that feeds an almost religious faith to Science.

jazzbunny (November 21, 2008 at 7:49 pm)

Society only exerts power if we engage in it. The reader can choose whether to engage in the text or not and can choose which parts they read and use as well as invent their own interpretation. The author (society) only exerts power in that they provide the context and structure of the text that is being used. Of course we can agree with the intentions of society and choose to follow the text but we can also disagree with it and choose not to follow or read a different book.

jazzbunny (November 21, 2008 at 7:45 pm)

yeh, I see where you are coming from but that is the problem I have with post-structuralism. For me society is a little 'o' other and our interpretation of society is the big 'O'.
As Derrida suggests in his interpretation of Nietzshe in Ear of the Other - the listener can choose not to listen.

Ultimately we create a secondary text out of society. Otherwise we would not create new language. I think I have got around the paradox by viewing society as a book and we are the reader...

zkeru (November 21, 2008 at 7:34 pm)

we can solved this problam by assuming that we cannot, a-priori, to "discover" the boundaries of our thought. Every thought, word and meaning are a product of the social boundaries, therfore, we cannot be outside them, only in them, and therefore, cannot give them a full description

xpressivist (November 21, 2008 at 12:35 pm)

i only wish that foucalt, before his demise, had a debate with jerry fodor. what do you think would have happened?lol