You saved my life, now I have a little bit better understanding of Foucault's genealogy and how to connect it with the definition of problematization. Thanks again. Keep the amazing work!

That was one of the best little drill-downs into Foucault I’ve ever heard. Thanks.

"Because that is the nature of the way things are." And now I know philosophy.

When I'm tired of reading, I come to your videos, it's both studying and relaxing for me.

Dear Professor Ellie, thanks for this proyect and regards from Colombia! I learn a lot with you and I admire you!!

Phenomenal video, thank you.

Thanks for the clarity presenting such abstract notions. Clear as a bell.

Such good work. Thank you.

This was a great video. Many thanks indeed.

I have never appreciated a KZfaq video more than this one

Thank you so much for your explanation. It really helped.

Very well explained, thank you.

The analogy of onions is a recurrent theme in Hindu & Buddhist philosophies too.

Incredible video! You are the Queen!

Helpful, thank you

Very nice! Thank you

Very well explained, thank you. You're a very gifted teacher :) On another hand, these reflections reinforce me more on how far I am from Foucault's and Nietzsche's thoughts and ways of thinking. I definetelly don't agree with them and their conclusions and perspectives; the more I study and understand them (and their genious and brilliancy), the more deeply and solidly I disagree :)

Excellent analysis

Foucault is certainly a very interesting thinker. Nevertheless, I would like to critique the very vague conception of “essence” which Foucault may be handling. It is not really a refutation of “having an essence” the fact that history is determining the temporality and circumstances of the this essence. Essence has in it the assumption that in what a thing is, it contains its own past. Therefore, I would say that Foucault, even if he says this or not, is not making a critique of “essence” in things, but rather the critique of the confusion between the accidental and the essential. This confusion is a real confusion, since it has real effects, and not only that, but the confusion itself enables its own reproductibility, since if we take the accidental as essential, the becoming is now determined by the particularities of this accidents, and makes the essence to be manifest only through those accidents. Let us take a non-societal example. Oxygen has the accidental property of keeping us alive by mediation of its chemical effects. But this accidental property which leads us in a first moment to need oxygen, in itself is alao killing us. One of its accidents determines the becoming of its essence in certain circumstances. So, Foucault is right in showing us how not only history, but ourselves, are products of what accidents of ourselves we see to be essential. For example, if we thing race or gender is “determinant” of our intellect and capacities, it in fact leads to a certain becoming. We and history is a product of this supposition. But that does not mean there is no essence. Is love essential or unessential to human beings? Is eating unessential to us? These questions may sound ironical, but are meant to show that Foucault is, like many others, a genius that does not understand itself.

It was a while ago I read something from Foucault. I think It was a great conceptualisation of Foucault. I would love If you dived deeper into the idea of knowledge/power, institutional power and how this contemporary “fixed” essences or hyper positions (race & gender) occur. 😅

Awesome!

Bookshelf tour!!

Fantastic

Thank you for this very interesting video. Which book/edition do the page numbers refer to? I would love to be able to read the primary text :)

thank u

Very interesting topic relevant to today’s identity politics, which has its use and place, but I share the same concerns when it pushes oneself into a box of “essence,” where I am this category, vs a fluid interpretation. As a trans person I have never felt like my identity was fixed, but glad that it is fluid and continues to be fluid, as that gives me freedom of choice and also change.

Any interest in doing a series on heidegger, your videos are really great and distill the information clearly

As always these pieces are amazingly articulate discourses on abstruse subjects. The point brought out here about identities has considerable merit in the sense identities are not fixed. And emphasizing how Foucault attacks capitalist concepts of fixed or legal identity as dangerous. That said to me some things can be affected by how identity is longer lasting. Humans use language to add change to people as they live. Animals can’t add those kinds of changes and change in their context is more restricted. Identities in humans cluster around types of lived being, such as sexual practices. But change is complex, and difficult to judge in the sense of the purpose of fixedness. Some concepts like worker don’t offer a good sense of what is meant by universal identity. Rather large scale systems of government shape a long lasting quality of being of identity that varies between systems. This problematic quality of being in a context of systems eludes Foucault’s sense of contingency. One can’t be born a hundred thousand years ago assume an identity outside of the fixedness of the culture around oneself.

If we are always already in a becoming of history that we cannot sublimate, then how did Foucault do his Geneology? If we are prioritizing the contingencies around the origin of new ideas, what are the contingencies surrounding Foucault? What kind of car did he drive? Did he have a housekeeper?

What about the heterogeneity of gestural hand communication?

How can a society that brings out the best in human nature possibly be built on a bunch of people who are willingly and constantly changing the basic tenants of who they are?... This is a man who benefited most from that which he tries to tear down

It's good that there are women who add their beauty to wisdom and not the other way around.

Personal identity... "reasons and persons" by Derek Parfit

That's really true of him. We are ok with surveillance and watchdog authority in almost every area of our society...still about the gay movment why was he critical about it ?? I was not able to get that.

"Men are by nature envious... ...they rejoice at the weakness of their fellows , and are pained by their accomplishments" - Baruch Spinoza

I hope someone uses his criticism of essence and fixed identity to tell the gender critics, they are more right than perhaps they know.

I agree with completely with Norm Chomsky. After his 'debate' with Foucault, Dr. Chomsky states that Foucault is the most amoral person he has ever met.

If there were no human nature, the science of economics would have no chance of predicting mass behavior, yet it does to a reasonable degree.

I know for a fact I have an innate nature regardless of culture or history. when I was five years old I was taken to a zoo for the first time, when I saw the caged monkey's, I frowned and asked my parents why do people put animals in cages ? I was given no prior opinion on the subject whatsoever.

Instead of “gay is normal” as an essentialist claim, we could maybe accept the claim: being gay is common and the very concept of gay is historical, I.e., the concept and lived reality of being gay is becoming and heterogeneous.

If Foucault thinks there is no essence where does he think his own sexuality come from?

Genealogy, not geneology.

Hello, please become an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

She’s so annoying. She could talk about Foucault in a calm and reasonable manner. and less edits (very distracting)