Detailed Information About Michel Foucault (Fuko)June 27, 2021
According to the medical bulletin published by Le Mond (27 June 1984), Michel Foucault died on 25 June at 13 o’clock in Paris de la Saipetridre Hospital as a result of neurological complications after acute septicemia (severe blood poisoning). The news appeared in the newspaper under the two-column headline “La mort du philosophe Michel Foucault” (The Death of the Philosopher Michel Foucault) in the form of an extraordinary flood of praise that filled the first page. The editorial was written by Pierre Bourdieu, a distinguished colleague of Foucault at the College de Frence.
It is hard to imagine, with the exception of France and Foucault, that his work on philosophy and history could have received such an intense and revered attention to the death of any other contemporary philosopher, despite the difficulty and intransigence of his work, although he received a tribute to his memory from the Prime Minister. Considering Foucault’s death as a great loss, and what has been said about the astonishing power and influence of his thought that still lives on, shows why he received such attention. He is, I think, best understood as perhaps the greatest of Nietzsche’s modern apostles, and also as a central figure in some of the most remarkable expansions of the oppositional intellectual life of the twentieth-century West.
Along with Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Georges Canguilhem, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Lucien Goldmann, Louis Aithusser, Jacques Derrida, Claude L. Strauss, Roland Barthes, Gilles Deleuze, and Bourdieu, Foucault is more than we will likely see for the next few generations. It was fed by an unusual revolutionary accumulation of Paris aesthetic and political movements, which is the result of nearly forty years of production as a collection of brilliant works. What amounted to a real upheaval in modern thought was the breaking down of the existing walls between discipline and language, and then the remodeling of the spaces divided by these walls from below the surface to their most complex superstructures. From these names emerged theories, silhouettes of astonishing efficiency, and grand formal systems, whose sources of inspiration were a perverse mix of academic and rebellious thought.
All that we have mentioned bears profound influences from Marx and individually, to a greater or lesser extent, from Freud; many of them are preoccupied with language as theoretical tacticians and as a means of seeing truth, if not the founder of truth; The best-known—some from university lectures and nearly legendary teachers—as well as those of Gaston Bachelard, Geoges Dumdzil, Emile Benveniste, Jean Hyppolite, and Alexandre Kojeve (whose famous lectures and seminars on Hegel seem to have shaped an entire generation)—surrealist poets and writers Andre They were also influenced by Breton and Raymond Roussel, and by the extraordinary writer-philosophers Georges Battaille and Maourice Blanchot. Finally, all of these Paris intellectuals were closely involved with the events in the political life of France, the important milestones of the Second World War, the reaction to European Communism, the Vietnam and Algerian colonial wars and May 1968. Beyond France, they placed emphasis on Germany and German thought, and rarely on the work of British and American writers. Within this uniquely exceptional group, Foucault was the prominent figure. Once he had the most extensive training: he was also the most concrete and historicist as well as the most radical in theoretical study. The latter was the name most devoted to the study (Bourdieu’s words about Him are “le plaisir de savoir” and therefore the least Parisian, the least fashionable, or the least talked about. Even more interestingly, he examines vast fields of social and intellectual history. He read both traditional and unconventional texts with equal attention, and still did not seem to say the usual or unoriginal, even in the later stages of his career, when he was prone to making comically general observations.Foucault was neither merely a historian nor a philosopher. nor was he a literary critic, but he carried all that and more.
Like Theodor Adorno, he was stern, uncompromising, and pious in his attitudes, although he resembled Adorno in that his ambiguity had little to do with his brilliant style, and also with little to do with his boringly broad, often vague, theoretical and creative ideas about society, culture, and the power to which all his works were directed. In short, Foucault was a mixed writer devoted to the genres of novel, history, sociology, political science and philosophy, which he went far beyond in his works. Because of this, he deliberately added a certain marginality to his work, for him it was both Nietzschean and postmodern: cynical and immoral in its subversion of idols and myths. However, even in Foucault’s most objective writing one can still hear a distinctive voice: it is no accident that he is the master of the interview as a cultural genre. Thus the old acceptable demarcations between critique and creation were no longer valid in what Foucault wrote and said, just as in Nietzsche’s words or Gramsci’s Prison Note.