Let's debate.The interview given by Foucault is named "The danger of child sexuality", and you can type it on Google, and find the piece of text on <<uib>> or other resources out there, having in mind that the academic ones are superior of course.You just have to read it all to understand the contxt

​

First of all, maybe you will need a thoroughly read of this interview given by Foucault, a rare one or at least an intervention that doesn't get attacked so much by people who claim that they have engaged with Foucault's work on a direct fashion.

My prime curiosity would be what was Foucault thinking when he articulated the problem in such a suspect way. I suppose he wasn't so unconscious about this little textual heritage because he didn't, from what I could find, corrected those mental transfers of his and the public sphere didn't asked him for clarifications, which was convenient. Is this the way many french people really thought on those days? Because it is a really disorganized thinking, and really irresponsible to be honest.

I get that there were tumultuous times, but this type of inversion of perspectives really don't fight the good fight and some people find this intellectual promiscuity only now, at least some people from outside France approached this recently as I regard. On the other hand, continuous inversions of multiple aspects is not something strange for the relativist(ic) mind, where all the meanings are reversed, and reversed again, till nothing matters and there's no meaning in rest.

Or am I missing something when regarding this approach? What was their real objective? Are we suppose to think that all those french philosophers were actually rationals and wouldn't actually tolerate the degeneracy we see in those types of body-text? Are we suppose to take those points as being really deep or just metaphors of something? I just ask.