GWDS

Whoa. Okay, to set the record straight, I was being sarcastic in the introductory section, hence the in the post. I was going to go back after the mod threatened to ban me and correct him, but its been moved to a section where I don't think that's possible. Now, I do tend farther to the left then the right but that should not be relevant in a discussion forum. As for ZMag, I went through an 8 hour phase of liking it, untill I realised it is little more than islamofascist apologetics and out-there thinkers like Howard Zinn. And Michael Moore's F-9/11 was a piece of crap, plain and simple. You should all read the article though, it has excllant examples of BS.

Hi, thanks for your comments. Like many on the 'New Left' Foucault was predispsed to see only the post-colonial types of narrative, subonciously dismissing the more corrupt (to say the least) elements of the 'Liberators', at least that has been my interpretation. However, one's political veiws and one's philosophical veiws are two seperate things. Wait, why am I telling you guys this, you know that already. Moving on.... True, as I said Foucault's big appeal (in my eyes) is he does not read History through one monolithic system - Marxism, Social Darwinism, etc. He tries to deal with cultural systems in thier own terms. This would be an annoyance to many who want to reduce history to a single formula. I have not studied in any great detail Foucault's work in biology, but I see where this is coming from. To me the valuable parts of his study of medicine are his ideas of how the 'body', 'desease', and the role of the physician evolved over time. As well are his ideas of bio-power, how medicince has the ability to exert control over the individual in society. Now I have not read Foucault directly attacking Doctors - but I would not put it past him. Nice joke, and a good eample of why postmodernism is only good in history, not in any situation where one is at risk. Worshipping a philosopher is generally a bad idea, unless you're dumb and you have to. Especially one with as many mistakes at times larger than his contributions. When I read Foucault his tendency to wrap conspiracies around almost everything makes me feel like I'm drinking fine wine mixed with mold. You really have to keep him at arm's length. If you were to apply his principals of historical analysis to everyday life, yes, you would be an utter nihilist; although a starnge one, being convinced desire is a social construction and all. If you looked at how Foucault actually lived his life you would see this - constant drug abuse, rampant unsafe sex and occasional bursts of murderous fury. I don't suppose you would have a link or any other information on that qoute would you?

I'd have to agree, generally BS is taken as fact. Anyone see Faranheit 9-11? On a different note, the otherwise whacky Z Magazine has a good article on this - http://www.zmag.org/ScienceWars/anti_rationalism.htm

Honestly, I have no idea why someone would even bother arguing with a creationist let alone finding resources. I have had many a conversation with them, and it always comes down to this - All scientists are scular humanists, Darwin lied, Hubble lied, Paluxy tracks, NASA verified the lost day. Etc, Etc. What have been the experiances for yourselves?

I don't really think of him as a philosopher, hence why this is ion the History thread. I first got into Foucault looking for someone who gave concrete definitions to the idea of 'worldveiws' in history. So, for example, I find his ideas of the evolution of 'madness', 'the self', etc. interesting - he was, to my knowledge, the first person to try this sort of thing. You could say I like him because he frees history from 'absolutes' and tries to let us see a culture on its own terms. For example, psychology loves to say that the definition of madness is based on empiracle research and its history is just told as a positivist hymn of advances by like minded psychologists in centuries past. This History, however, completly ignores the fact that the distinction between sanity and insanity is in many respects little more than a value judgement. In "Madness and Civilisation" Foucault tries to sketch a history of these value judgements and how psyvhology was related to Christianity, economics, and the whole range of culture. Now, I do have a LOT of issues with Foucault, first and foremost his ideas of power. While tracing the changes in say the nature of sexuality, Foucault seems obseesed with showing how its all one big powerplay - Victorians did not talk about sex because they were intersted in 'loving', but becuse they were part of the giant puriatnical anti-sex conspiracy. Also, I have not any read any criticisms of his histories, so I'm not sure how well each of his theories holds up in the mainstream. Where I come from its hard enough to get a copy of the 'Madness and Civilisation', let alone a scholar's reply.

Hi, just wondering if anyone here has read Michael Foucault and what they thought of his veiws.

Thanks for the quick reply.

Hi, I just read about a new 'treatment' under development for depression an want an Objectivist perspective - Brain Stimulator Treats Resistant Depression Small study finds rapid, long-lasting effects and even remission Betterhumans Staff 2/28/2005 3:24 PM Credit: Joshua Blake All smiles: When a specific part of their brain was stimulated, depressed people in a new study reported such things as "sudden calmness or lightness" and a "disappearance of the void" Electrically stimulating the brain can dramatically alleviate depression resistant to other treatments. The findings come from a small study of six people. But they are significant, say the study's authors, because up to 20% of people with depression don't respond to standard treatments and require a combination of such things as antidepressants and electroconvulsive treatment that still may fail. Depression-fighting nerve stimulators are already approved in the US. The devices, made by Cyberonics of Houston, Texas, comprise pacemaker-like generators and nerve stimulation electrodes that deliver electrical signals to the vagus nerve in the left side of the neck. In the new study, Helen Mayberg of Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia and colleagues implanted an array of electrodes into part of the brain called the subgenual cingulate region. Previous studies had indicated that this area is overactive in treatment-resistant depression. Happiness switch The new study, which lasted six months, found immediate improvements in mood when electrical stimulation of a few volts was applied to the implanted electrodes. For four of the participants, the effect lasted for the full six months, with three people achieving remission or near remission. Adverse effects were limited to infections around implant sites that were treatable with antibiotics. "All patients spontaneously reported acute effects including 'sudden calmness or lightness,' 'disappearance of the void,' sense of heightened awareness, increased interest, 'connectedness,' and sudden brightening of the room, including a description of the sharpening of visual details and intensification of colors in response to electrical stimulation," the researchers report. When the stimulation was turned off, the feelings disappeared, only to return when the stimulation was resumed. Furthermore, besides improvements in depression symptoms, participants also had improved hand-eye coordination, verbal fluency and risk judgment. The research is reported in the journal Neuron. http://www.betterhumans.com/Print/index.as...ID=2005-02-28-3

5 replies in about ten hours. Is every objectivist on the net on this forum? I looked into Ayn Rand about 3 years ago but very quickly was put off by what I had read. I'll look into the virtue of selfishness, read it, then post again if warranted. Thanks for the help.

Hello everyone. I've always held Objectivism at arms length mainly due to the stereotype of the 'Evil Greedy Ayn Rand', I do have one question though an Objectivist was not able to answer for me, hence I post it here. It seems to me the foundation of Objectivism is a certain veiw of the state of Nauture. It assumes that mankind is still involved in a kind of war of all against all in which each individual must do everything they can to secure their own existence and hapiness in a nessecary struggle against others with similar goals. With this starting point Objectivism moves on to condemn any action outside survival - self sacrifice, altruism, socialism, etc. Is this a basically correct picture of the philosophy? If so, I have serious doubts about it. Ayn Rand takes the most chaotic picture of Nature - ignoring the fact that nature is as often in a state of cooperation as competition - to paint the ideal human society. I beleive that this sort of thinking causes us to wind back the clock of progress. Such things as the public trust, charity, and compassion, which took man eras to create, can now be ignored in our quest to realise the more primitve state of nature Rand proclaims. This is my basic greivance with Objectivism, can anyone comment on this? (I apologise for the choppy nature of the post, typed at 2 am. )