/fa/ - Fashion

>>11236436
>>11238638

>>11238757 :
>we shouldn't encourage shit like "the post-structuralist ideology critique of the kafkaesque ideology of subsumed thought in cultural verisimilitude of the subconscious conceptual analogue of the quotidian experience represented by mere phantoms of blah blah blah". that's not good writing. it's an unfortunate side effect of people attempting to "make it" in an academic career.

No academic currently writes or ever wrote like this, or at least not in any reputable journal / press. This isn’t even a good imitation of obscurantism. If Anon knew what he was talking about, he would at least dig up an actual quote, probably from a philosopher, probably Lacan, or Deleuze and Guattari, or maybe even Heidegger. That he doesn't give us an actual example shows that the object of his critique is imaginary. What he calls "fashionable obscurantism" doesn't refer to anything. Anon is confused about how academic writing can be substantial because his own understanding of that writing is too flimsy to support an argument against it. If all you can do is (badly) imitate the posture of philosophical thought, and not its substance, then of course you're going to mischaracterize it as empty posturing.

Here’s a quote from Walter Benjamin (quoted in a book on Walter van Beirendonck. It's from "Paris, Capital of the Nineteenth Century," one of Benjamin’s exposés for what would become the Arcades Project):

“Fashion prescribed the ritual by which the fetish commodity wishes to be worshipped.”

Now we have an actual example of a Frankfurt School theorist’s “incomprehensible” writing.