i mean like, you know. i'm literally just a guy. not knowing anything about nietzsche was defo a detriment here.
but the usual fun foucault moves; of going up and up and above the current structure to the next level of structural awareness. his essay on the conception of the author as really just a categorization, a body of work, as opposed to a historical person was cool. his careful delineating of 'difference' as its own thing separate from a relationship with 'the same'; liberating difference from a background of uniformity; was also cool. helpful to read this series of essays right after Anti-Oedipus, just to catch the themes and echoes these thinkers had with each other, in their collabs with each other. It is very much about identifying "sinks" to me; endpoints to unidirectional flows of power -- the father, capital, harshly delineated categories like good and evil. and i think offering a similar counter that deleuze+guattari do, of distributed power, of uneven and contradictory and myriadness in the face of a totalizing/unifyingness.
the easiest to follow one was defo his spoken conversations with ... high schoolers? maybe? i was v taken (admittedly in a 'repostable insta story' way) by his observation that 'humanists' want to change ideology without changing institutions (a BLACK president is gonna drone strike weddings!); and reformers want to change institutions without changing ideology (we don't need cops but we still need prisons); and neither is revolution. it was also a fun little reversal in his convo w deleuze that they agree that theory is "regional" and "specific"; that it needs constant updating because it is deployed in situations where it is either useful or useless (in which case discard it). i don't disagree. or i like situating theory in specific situations as opposed to quoting scripture at each other to try to win through citation. or maybe in the lineage of these essays every event is specific; every person is specific; universalizing theory is intrinsically not going to work.
i was v taken by the early essays on language, on how the written or printed word forms subjects or forms subjectivity? i wasn't sure how much i followed it but i liked thinking about it. i was v fascinated by his conception (or how i took it) of the 'purpose' of language being to overcome itself, or to escape into the inexpressible, and also to overcome death. it reminded me of Carson's Eros the Bittersweet; something about striving towards a platonism that doesn't exist or something.
i was v lost but still interested in his essay called "Theatrum Philosophicum". no idea what it's about, but there's definitely a vibe that it's about history, or how to think about history in a way that again, avoids turning it into a pat story or a pat relation to modern understandings of the world and structures of power. but it also has something about maybe a different kind of subject, a less cohesive subject maybe? i got the sense that like history itself individual subjecthood is just a bunch of events strung together that randomly but repeatedly achieve consciousness. overall i feel all this french theory is finding the area under a curve by painstakingly doing a derivative by hand instead of just measuring it in one smooth fell swoop, if that makes sense. if the area under the curve is some sort of buddhist enlightenment. same themes but more complicatedly discussed imo; that subjects don't exist or the idea of a cohesive subject needs to be challenged; that the present is a complicated and uncategorizable tapestry that is more discrete and unsmooth than one thinks, that there are non-rational forms of knowledge and desire. that's the take. anyway idk it was fun! i like foucault! wahoo!