Most overrated and underrated political philosophers?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:49:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Most overrated and underrated political philosophers?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Most overrated and underrated political philosophers?  (Read 3683 times)
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2020, 12:40:51 PM »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

Just say that everything is a prison. That about covers it.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2020, 09:00:03 AM »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

At best, impenetrable word-salads. At worst... an example of that disturbing phenomenon when 'Theory' is placed into an intellectual ecosystem it does not belong in and functions like an invasive species.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2020, 11:29:09 AM »

I can't believe I forgot about Foucault when I was doing the OP for this thread. He did have some good insights, but the fact that the Most Cited Scholar In The Humanities is someone who wanted to legalize pedophilia and supported the Ayatollah Khomeini is an embarrassment.

I was actually going to ask about why Foucault hadn't been mentioned? I've never read his work beyond a chapter for a module at uni so would be interested to hear what people think about him
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,472
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2020, 01:02:04 PM »

Foucault be like: "The age of consent is a prison."
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2020, 01:39:37 PM »
« Edited: May 09, 2020, 01:43:50 PM by The scissors of false economy »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

At best, impenetrable word-salads. At worst... an example of that disturbing phenomenon when 'Theory' is placed into an intellectual ecosystem it does not belong in and functions like an invasive species.

The single worst grade I've ever gotten on an academic paper was also the only time I've ever cited Foucault. It was so uncharacteristically bad and so incomprehensible, even to me after I'd written it!, that my professor gave me a mulligan and told me I had a week to rewrite it from top to bottom. The rewritten version was Foucault-less and got an A-.

If memory serves, the paper was meant to prove that there should be gay rights in Japan or something, a subject that my professor, correctly, had faith that I was more than capable of discussing without recourse to The History of Sexuality or whatever it was I made the mistake of citing. In my defense, I was nineteen years old at the time.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2020, 11:19:10 PM »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

At best, impenetrable word-salads. At worst... an example of that disturbing phenomenon when 'Theory' is placed into an intellectual ecosystem it does not belong in and functions like an invasive species.

The single worst grade I've ever gotten on an academic paper was also the only time I've ever cited Foucault. It was so uncharacteristically bad and so incomprehensible, even to me after I'd written it!, that my professor gave me a mulligan and told me I had a week to rewrite it from top to bottom. The rewritten version was Foucault-less and got an A-.

If memory serves, the paper was meant to prove that there should be gay rights in Japan or something, a subject that my professor, correctly, had faith that I was more than capable of discussing without recourse to The History of Sexuality or whatever it was I made the mistake of citing. In my defense, I was nineteen years old at the time.

I once went to a seminar on Foucault's "dispositif" at Berkeley. It might be the only lecture I've ever come close to falling asleep in.
Logged
Brother Jonathan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,011


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2020, 11:58:31 PM »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

At best, impenetrable word-salads. At worst... an example of that disturbing phenomenon when 'Theory' is placed into an intellectual ecosystem it does not belong in and functions like an invasive species.

The single worst grade I've ever gotten on an academic paper was also the only time I've ever cited Foucault. It was so uncharacteristically bad and so incomprehensible, even to me after I'd written it!, that my professor gave me a mulligan and told me I had a week to rewrite it from top to bottom. The rewritten version was Foucault-less and got an A-.

If memory serves, the paper was meant to prove that there should be gay rights in Japan or something, a subject that my professor, correctly, had faith that I was more than capable of discussing without recourse to The History of Sexuality or whatever it was I made the mistake of citing. In my defense, I was nineteen years old at the time.

I once went to a seminar on Foucault's "dispositif" at Berkeley. It might be the only lecture I've ever come close to falling asleep in.

My favorite example of Foucauldian thought run amok was when I had to listen to a lecture about how neoliberalism encourages state violence against people who deviate from heteronormative sexual activity. Maybe there is something to that, I mean I don't think so but it has academic value, but that being said why it came up in a medieval history class I couldn't tell you.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 10, 2020, 12:17:25 AM »

Foucault was a lunatic with extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes, but his strange, addled brain did produce on occasion some very important insights that, most probably, would not have occurred to anyone else. Where a lot of academics go wrong is to try to use him as a substitute for the fallen Marx; as a man who created and propagated a total system of thought that can be usefully applied to any possible scholarly problem.

Just out of curiosity, how does applying Foucaultvian thought to any scholarly problem work?

At best, impenetrable word-salads. At worst... an example of that disturbing phenomenon when 'Theory' is placed into an intellectual ecosystem it does not belong in and functions like an invasive species.

The single worst grade I've ever gotten on an academic paper was also the only time I've ever cited Foucault. It was so uncharacteristically bad and so incomprehensible, even to me after I'd written it!, that my professor gave me a mulligan and told me I had a week to rewrite it from top to bottom. The rewritten version was Foucault-less and got an A-.

If memory serves, the paper was meant to prove that there should be gay rights in Japan or something, a subject that my professor, correctly, had faith that I was more than capable of discussing without recourse to The History of Sexuality or whatever it was I made the mistake of citing. In my defense, I was nineteen years old at the time.

I once went to a seminar on Foucault's "dispositif" at Berkeley. It might be the only lecture I've ever come close to falling asleep in.

My favorite example of Foucauldian thought run amok was when I had to listen to a lecture about how neoliberalism encourages state violence against people who deviate from heteronormative sexual activity. Maybe there is something to that, I mean I don't think so but it has academic value, but that being said why it came up in a medieval history class I couldn't tell you.

That's hilarious given that Foucault was a proto-neoliberal himself.
Logged
Brother Jonathan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,011


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 10, 2020, 12:35:45 AM »
« Edited: May 10, 2020, 12:43:14 AM by Brother Jonathan »

In no small part because he thought it would help create a more open society. The lecture was explicitly about fusing Marxist and Foucauldian thought on neoliberalism though, so that might explain the hostility towards neoliberalism that isn't directly from Foucault.

On the subject of underrated political philosophers, I think Machiavelli is also not given his due. He's frequently discussed, but the depth and importance of his work is never really fully appreciated. He was, after all, a republican who was cited by the Founders from time to time and had a great influence of Thomas Hobbes. Most people would just tell you he was a scheming evil mastermind, but he was a serious thinker who deserves more mainstream study when it comes to discussions of republicanism.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 10, 2020, 01:07:24 AM »
« Edited: May 10, 2020, 01:28:38 AM by Mainlining Clorox to Own the Libs »

In no small part because he thought it would help create a more open society. The lecture was explicitly about fusing Marxist and Foucauldian thought on neoliberalism though, so that might explain the hostility towards neoliberalism that isn't directly from Foucault.

On the subject of underrated political philosophers, I think Machiavelli is also not given his due. He's frequently discussed, but the depth and importance of his work is never really fully appreciated. He was, after all, a republican who was cited by the Founders from time to time and had a great influence of Thomas Hobbes. Most people would just tell you he was a scheming evil mastermind, but he was a serious thinker who deserves more mainstream study when it comes to discussions of republicanism.

Made this in my first semester at Cal:



(I do love Machiavelli though)
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 11, 2020, 02:23:21 AM »

I made the mistake of reading about Foucault & his views on the age of consent....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 11, 2020, 09:16:54 AM »

I made the mistake of reading about Foucault & his views on the age of consent....

Yeeees... you see, I was not exaggerating when I mentioned 'extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes'.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 11, 2020, 04:14:59 PM »

I made the mistake of reading about Foucault & his views on the age of consent....

Yeeees... you see, I was not exaggerating when I mentioned 'extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes'.

The worst and most disillusioning part of it is when you realize how fashionable and widespread these viewpoints were in the immediately-post-1968 French chattering classes. Françoise Dolto signed that disgusting petition.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 12, 2020, 10:14:00 AM »
« Edited: May 12, 2020, 10:25:17 AM by c r a b c a k e »

Overrated: Montesquieu. The separation of powers he extolled in practice amounted to the rights of minor aristocrats to rule petty fiefdoms and entrenched powers to run rampant and unchecked. In general (obviously not always, don't @ me with counterexamples), common people have far more to fear from local despots rather than supposed all-powerful tyrants who, for all their flaws, have to at least govern taking everybody into account. It's no wonder that he found his origins in the Parlements of the ancien regime, the aristocratic institutions who consistently blew up all royal attempts to get the house in order by claiming this itself was tyranny, an obstinacy that would completely blow up in their faces in the Revolution. Moreover, his influence on states all over the world has been largely counterproductive: constitutions jammed fill with checks and balances and heavily separated powers are no less unlikely to be led by tyrants than states without; the idea that all branches of government jealously guard their own privileges against the other leading to a neat equilibrium is one that is not seen in reality.
Logged
Kleine Scheiße
PeteHam
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,770
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.16, S: -1.74

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 12, 2020, 08:31:13 PM »

Overrated: Karl Popper, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Giles Deleuze, B. F. Skinner, Mikhail Bakunin, Milton Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Noam Chomsky, Bertrand Russell

Underrated: Irakli Tsereteli, Sri Aurobindo, Bayard Rustin, Georges Sorel (whose name has been understandably yet tragically tarnished), Marcia Lacerda de Moura, Max Stirner, Joan Wallach Scott

Another underrated one: E. F. Schumacher.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 13, 2020, 11:46:05 AM »

talking of overrated French philosphers: Voltaire. dear god.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,322
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 13, 2020, 02:24:38 PM »

talking of overrated French philosphers: Voltaire. dear god.

Candide is brilliant.
Logged
Zinneke
JosepBroz
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,070
Belgium


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 14, 2020, 10:58:16 AM »
« Edited: May 14, 2020, 11:03:06 AM by Zinneke »

talking of overrated French philosphers: Voltaire. dear god.

No. There are just about a million french philosophers who deserve to be called out before Voltaire, just off the top of my head :

Fienkelkraut - massive knee-jerk reactionary who, as one journalist puts it, "confuses the decline of his own life for the decline of Civilization itself"

Onfray - bistro philosopher who loves to talk on absolutely every subject while descending into laughable levels of paranoia about The "Maastrichtian state" and how the media and particularly Laurent Joffrin are trying to frame him as a neo-Nazi or a right-wing anarchist.

Bernard Henri-Levi - Poser and favorite of the French establishment who advocated intervention and arms trading in Libya as a way of promoting civilization while writing puff piece plays about himself. Acts as a sort of Simon Cowell of Contemporary French Philosophy, with the same dress sense too.

Lacan - inspired an entire procession of word salad (what is a synonym?) and games philosophers including Zizek with bizarre psychonalaytical pseudo-science.

Comte-Sponville - another expert in everything and nothing who is currently re-doing the rounds of various TV plateaus complaining that Corona is ushering in the "dictatorship of medical sciences" - hope he gives up his hospital bed to an essential worker.

Ferry - The sigher-in-chief of French philosophy in the mid-2000s who became Minister for Education. Thinks he´s original because he imagines a future society of technology and gadgets and man's relationship to it without going into any of the depth that some of the Anglo-Saxon social theorists are engaging in.

Castoriadis - A dude who litterally thought Athenian democracy was more democratic than Western liberal democracy -- never mind the fact that women, slaves, under-35s etc were not allowed to vote.

Do I need to go on?

Voltaire is a key figure in the Enlightenment.
Logged
Georg Ebner
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 408
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 14, 2020, 05:43:41 PM »

"Overrated" are those philosophers, who are lectured in the pseudoscience of "politology" because they have written explicitely on politics.
"Underrated" are those philosophers, who are ignored by "politologists" because they have not written explicitely on the political implications of their systems.

Dude, don't you like Nicolás Gómez Dávila?  He was many things, but "somebody who didn't write explicitly on politics" was not one of them.
He is not - and hopefully will not be - lectured by "politologists".
Logged
Hnv1
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,505


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2020, 11:41:35 AM »

Overrated: Ronald Dworkin. Having both a training in philosophy and law I just don't get the fuss. terrible philosopher.

Underrated: mmm hard question. I suppose Joseph Raz
Logged
Storebought
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,326
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 23, 2020, 06:56:12 PM »

I made the mistake of reading about Foucault & his views on the age of consent....

Yeeees... you see, I was not exaggerating when I mentioned 'extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes'.

I actually don't understand the objection.

Foucault's arguments (as they were oversimplified on Wiki...) on how 19th century criminal law was based on a 19th century medical science that transformed every sexual activity that wasn't vaginal coitus into a "disease" is well known. Commonplace, really.
Logged
FEMA Camp Administrator
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,284
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 24, 2020, 09:00:49 AM »

Moreover, his influence on states all over the world has been largely counterproductive: constitutions jammed fill with checks and balances and heavily separated powers are no less unlikely to be led by tyrants than states without; the idea that all branches of government jealously guard their own privileges against the other leading to a neat equilibrium is one that is not seen in reality.

I'd actually be interested in seeing this put to the test. Of course, the central pitfall of such a research design would be to take constitutions at face-value; we would not only have to control for socioeconomic realities, but also the actual "correlation of forces" as of the constitution's ratification.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2020, 12:32:02 PM »

Overrated: Montesquieu. The separation of powers he extolled in practice amounted to the rights of minor aristocrats to rule petty fiefdoms and entrenched powers to run rampant and unchecked. In general (obviously not always, don't @ me with counterexamples), common people have far more to fear from local despots rather than supposed all-powerful tyrants who, for all their flaws, have to at least govern taking everybody into account. It's no wonder that he found his origins in the Parlements of the ancien regime, the aristocratic institutions who consistently blew up all royal attempts to get the house in order by claiming this itself was tyranny, an obstinacy that would completely blow up in their faces in the Revolution. Moreover, his influence on states all over the world has been largely counterproductive: constitutions jammed fill with checks and balances and heavily separated powers are no less unlikely to be led by tyrants than states without; the idea that all branches of government jealously guard their own privileges against the other leading to a neat equilibrium is one that is not seen in reality.

Yeah, I'm all in favor of the primacy of local governance and avoiding concentrations of power in one individual or institution(s) as much as possible, but in practice, Montesquieu's philosophy has led to redundant bureaucracies, completely unnecessary gridlock, and glorified palace intrigue as every schemer and operator who wants to be in or close to power competes to get as much as possible.

To use one of my favorite examples: the pre-MBS Saudi Arabia, where the interests of tens of thousands (!!!) of inbred royals, a rigid clerical establishment, some important merchant and tribal leaders, and many comically bloated and overlapping state ministries/fiefdoms were mediated by the King and his brothers (the current monarch being the primary mediator/enforcer, FWIW). Real paragon of republican virtue there! /s
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2020, 02:23:38 PM »
« Edited: September 18, 2020, 02:28:52 PM by The scissors of false economy »

I made the mistake of reading about Foucault & his views on the age of consent....

Yeeees... you see, I was not exaggerating when I mentioned 'extremely distasteful politics and moral attitudes'.

I actually don't understand the objection.

Foucault's arguments (as they were oversimplified on Wiki...) on how 19th century criminal law was based on a 19th century medical science that transformed every sexual activity that wasn't vaginal coitus into a "disease" is well known. Commonplace, really.

It's not that Foucault's historical argument was incorrect (although considering that a lot of these nineteenth-century legal reformers were first-wave feminists it does smack a little of "these ball-busting bitches hate to see a chad thrive, maaaan!"), it's that his policy conclusion was morally abhorrent.

Overrated: Montesquieu. The separation of powers he extolled in practice amounted to the rights of minor aristocrats to rule petty fiefdoms and entrenched powers to run rampant and unchecked. In general (obviously not always, don't @ me with counterexamples), common people have far more to fear from local despots rather than supposed all-powerful tyrants who, for all their flaws, have to at least govern taking everybody into account. It's no wonder that he found his origins in the Parlements of the ancien regime, the aristocratic institutions who consistently blew up all royal attempts to get the house in order by claiming this itself was tyranny, an obstinacy that would completely blow up in their faces in the Revolution. Moreover, his influence on states all over the world has been largely counterproductive: constitutions jammed fill with checks and balances and heavily separated powers are no less unlikely to be led by tyrants than states without; the idea that all branches of government jealously guard their own privileges against the other leading to a neat equilibrium is one that is not seen in reality.

Yeah, I'm all in favor of the primacy of local governance and avoiding concentrations of power in one individual or institution(s) as much as possible, but in practice, Montesquieu's philosophy has led to redundant bureaucracies, completely unnecessary gridlock, and glorified palace intrigue as every schemer and operator who wants to be in or close to power competes to get as much as possible.

To use one of my favorite examples: the pre-MBS Saudi Arabia, where the interests of tens of thousands (!!!) of inbred royals, a rigid clerical establishment, some important merchant and tribal leaders, and many comically bloated and overlapping state ministries/fiefdoms were mediated by the King and his brothers (the current monarch being the primary mediator/enforcer, FWIW). Real paragon of republican virtue there! /s

I think a lot of the think-maeking pseudophilosophy of American right-liberalism in general has its roots in Montesquieu. The whole "muh don't legislate morality" thing too, when of course in reality all legislating is inherently a moral act that expresses moral preferences.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.074 seconds with 12 queries.