/lit/ - Literature

At one point Foucault even claimed straightforwardly that his idea of "structure" in his madness period came from Dumezil (what?), and then predicably never mentioned this again, because he was just bullshitting the interviewer that day and subsequently realized Dumezil isn't chic or protean enough to cite as an influence, like Artaud or Blanchot. Also, the only reason Foucault said he wasn't a structuralist is because he felt it pinned him down too much to something concrete. If structuralism had been something permanently elusive and vague he would have said "Indeed I am a structuralist, for are not we all structuralists, and also not structuralists?"

When they get caught it's embarrassing and they act like idiots trying to cover their asses. Foucault really did lose the debate to Chomsky about how he can focus on liberating the subject from discursively constituted concepts like liberty and subjectivity without paradoxically presupposing the validity of enlightenment liberationist discourse, the same way a simpler and more honest anarchist like Ranciere or a simpler more honest marxist like Lefebvre does. Deleuze tries to defend him against this charge in a sloppy, stupid way, revealing that Deleuze too can selectively turn off his schizo LARP affected philosophizing style, and make perfectly prosaic, good old fashioned specious arguments when needed (when image and reputation are on the line). When Derrida humiliates Foucault by showing that he still has a metaphysics of presence, because Derrida actually did read and understand Heidegger and Husserl, Foucault can't reply. But later Derrida utterly humiliates himself too by pussying out of his debate with Gadamer, because Gadamer was better at Husserl and Heidegger than him and he knew it, and also knew he couldn't wiggle out of Gadamer's questioning with pretentious posturing.

They are all 75% frauds who have been shitposting so long they can't remember how to turn it off, which makes them get cocky and manic and say something a little too bullshitty sometimes, and then they have to scramble embarrassingly to cover it, like a cat that misjudged a leap.

The only discourse I've ever seen that resembles this is /lit/. I think I discovered /lit/'s essence. We are all 1950s normaliens. I can feel the AIDS blood coursing through me even as I write this and I don't want to cut my fingernails ever again.

>>20129849
Your post is a great example. Now go and actually read.

>>20129849
Have a bump for the effort bullshit post.

It makes absolutely no sense to me that these french intellectuals actually read kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and then thought when sitting down to write their own philosophical texts it appropriate to write the shit they ended up writing.
Who'd read Heidegger and then set out to write any of the works Foucault wrote? Deleuze and Guattari wrote that Anti-Oedipus is their approach to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason...

One has to assume they never actually read them.

>>20130386
They never expected Germans checking them, they only expected anglos who know even less than them.

>>20129849
>>20129853
Bump for the slightly delirious effort post, but this reads more like celebrity gossip than an actual critique of the French/continental approach.

>>20129849
Good read bro. Quite good
Am ESL, my writing below is embarrassing even to me, get over it

>Kojeve gives his lectures on Hegel
I read some paper on delusional, apparently to french intels Jean Hyppolite was more popular than Kojeve, and everything mentioning hegel in D&R is just about Jean's interpretation. And there really was nothing like Kojeve at that time - most hegelian only focuses on his logic.

>I have a feeling Foucault got his simplified buzzword tier "Bachelard=coupures epistemologiques" reading of Bachelard
Foucault absolutely read bachelard, this is near a level of rudeness.
Then why he read so poorly? At that time that was the best interpretation - just think about Alexandre Koyré's poor book. But even that was revolutional enough it was highly influential to Kuhn. We live in a society where the word "paradigm" almost feel like stepping grass but, there was a time when paradigm just means changes in latin.

Also, the only reason Foucault said he wasn't a structuralist is because he felt it pinned him down too much to something concrete.
>I read some paper about why Fuko hated the word "structuralist" so much, and the writer suggests the structuralistical political movement was the real villain. Apparently they were shit, even in his Archaeology-theorderofthings - era.
Also structuralist has glaring self-refuting issue, all of one knew it. Lacan, Barthes, even Lévi-Strauss knew about this.

>Foucault really did lose the debate to Chomsky about how he can focus on liberating the subject from discursively constituted concepts like liberty and subjectivity without paradoxically presupposing the validity of enlightenment liberationist discourse
https://youtu.be/Jmq3imrHPMk
I mean, at least he is trying.

>>20132112

>>20131365
>French/continental approach
where does OP critique the germans?
its solely about frenchies, so dont say continentals.

>>20129849
Thanks for the rare effort post read, anon. This was a treat

>>20133565
“Continental” as in continental as opposed to analytic thought. saying “it’s just the frenchies” is retarded when the problems with this mode of thought are not confined to a specific nationality

>>20129853
>>20129849
good post, made me chuckle in a few places
yes, french philosophers, and french thinkers in general, are memetier
remember that Macron tried passing off Foucault's work as American university hysterics back in 2018

Everytime I see OPs pic i imagine he just had that finger deep in a young boy’s asshole and he’s relishing the stench