Michel Foucault’s Suicide Orgies: What Does it Mean for a Thinker to be Serious?

According to “the Passion of Michel Foucault” Foucault said if he won the French lottery he would like to spend the money to endow a string of sexy S&M hospices where people who wanted to die could go and die having anonymous sex orgies. This raises a couple of questions:

1)Was he serious or kidding around?

2)Is this such a bad idea? If people are going to die in hospice, maybe some people would rather go out in some wild blow-out, rather than with a bunch of serious-faced family members and boring clergy gathered around.

3)What does it mean for a thinker to be “serious” and does it matter?

I don’t know enough about Foucault to answer (1) and I don’t have much more to say about (2) so I want to focus on (3).

Thinkers are a little bit like engineers. An engineer can put forward a proposal in at least two spirits — as speculative or as actual. In a speculative proposal the engineer proposes something that could work, and that enlarges our understanding of the possible, but he or she doesn’t know exactly how to do it. It’s helpful though if the engineer can be pretty clear about what problems might arise, and think through as much of the details as he or she can. So for example it’s helpful that Clarke (or whoever Clarke was cribbing from) suggested a geosynchronous satellite with an elevator connecting it to Earth. It’s okay that when he did so nobody knew a strong enough material to build it. The tethered geosynchronous satellite was still a helpful, albeit speculative suggestion. It helped us think about what it would take to build a space station and suggested an alternative to rocket flight.

But it wouldn’t have been helpful if he said “maybe we could build a ladder to the moon”. That’s too speculative — there are too many problems and not enough constructive thinking. It’s essentially frivolous.

A practical proposal gives the details for something the engineer believes could actually be built, right now. It’s meant to persuade us that it’s feasible and in the best case scenario the engineer has already proved it can be done by doing it.

I think thinkers are solving two variables — what is the world like and what kind of person to be. A good thinker is putting forward either a speculative proposal or a practical proposal. If the thinker is serious he makes it clear which it is.

A thinker can fail to be serious in two ways: by being hypocritical or by being frivolous.

A thinker is hypocritical if he says he lives a certain way but really doesn’t. That would be like an engineer saying he built a suspension bridge out of a certain substance when he really didn’t. It’s a lie and a trick. Hypocritical thinkers waste people’s time and energy. They are charlatans.

A thinker is frivolous if he puts forward a speculative proposal that does so little to address obvious objections and has so little hard work put into it that it is essentially a ladder to the moon.

Was Foucault hypocritical or frivolous with his wild crazy suicide parties? I don’t know. But I don’t think so!


4 thoughts on “Michel Foucault’s Suicide Orgies: What Does it Mean for a Thinker to be Serious?

  1. I’d wonder if it’s just one of those living room/internet slips – people say what they’d say in their living room, but say it on the internet without thinking the political think it takes to distinguish the two.

    I mean technically it’d be his money – so why can’t he be stupid with his money? However, releasing it to the general public suggests some grander scheme to it. I mean, it’d be like someone writing they could understand the nazis, as part of a strange story about understanding too much. And who’d do that? 😉 So it could be a subtextual comment on the obscene wealth lotteries indulge in and so why not an obscene application, to underline the obscenity?

    But then again, would one go and be charitable about this if it were a garbage man who said this, rather than someone with a bit of fame? Maybe he was just dumb?

    • Bah – read ‘say it on the internet’ as ‘say in in general public’. I was honestly ignorant of the time scale we were talking about.

      Posting without an edit button is too much like real life…

      • Well, if he was serious, maybe you’ve got a false dychotomy – hypocritical, frivilous…or not the man you thought he was?

        That might seem like it falls under hypocritical, but whas he trying to get you to think he was X type of person, or did you just assume he was X type of person?

        Granted sometimes people assume and the person in question becomes semi aware that’s happened but trades off it anyway (because giving up a whole living for a principle of opacity?). But if they didn’t try to engender the assumptions, is that full on hypocracy? Would the assumers be hypocritical themselves to think it was hypocracy?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s