/lit/ - Literature

>>5250978
1) none of those really apply to Fedoras AT ALL
2) you literally don't criticize them in any way at all except posting a pic that doesn't even address them

that's why this is b8, and it would suck if this thread got a ton of mad replies. oh well

>>5250978
You're doing Nothing's Work, Anon.

>>5250991
>mfw you die of AIDS just like Foucault

summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending summer's ending

>>5250978
>I frame criticisms in a Marxist fashion
Thesis 11.

Get a job.
Join the union.
Murder your boss.

how did you know?

>>5250978
>not being post structuralist

how plen can you get

>>5250978
also post structuralism didn't get along too well with the structure inherent in marxist beliefs but don't let that get in the way of your shitposting

>>5251101
There is no structure inherent in Marxist beliefs, only universal material critique. Post-structuralists are upset that there's a structure in social relations that precedes ideology.

>>5250978
Your post shows a disciplinary power in a discoursive form. However, your normalization of what is allowed to be said will never be successful because it is only reactive to resistance which always escapes power in some way.

>>5251111
I... don't think you understand "post-structuralism". They don't believe in the usual concept of ideology because they don't see it as false perception of some meaningful reality hiding behind it. World for them makes sense only as interpretation.

>>5251228
There's nothing OTHER THAN words for a post-structuralist. They're blind to ideology because they, like German idealists, acknowledge nothing other than the existence the self-supporting existence of ideology. People do not enter into discrete social relations for the post-structuralist, language slops around instead, like the toilet on a commuter train.

I am currently reading through the manifesto of Elloit Rodgers for my personal amusement, and several times throughout he talks about how he took history classes, politics classes, sociology classes .. how he read all those history and philosophy books in his free time and how much he considers himself to be an intellectual and so on.. then, when he finally talks about this philosophical viewpoints he developed, its basically just

>woman are evil and should be slaves
>intellectuals like me should determine with whom they are allowed to mate

it was so underwhelming but also quite funny.

disappointingly, he never specifies which book exactly he read, with the exception of two weird self-help kinda books. weird shit.

could it have been Foucault, guys?

hint: he wanted to live in a tower from where he could oversee all his subjects and rule with iron fist.

>>5251243
That's a pretty poor interpretation. It's like you're equating "post-structuralism" with a obnoxious misreading of Derrida. But OK, Derrida did put emphasis on the "infinite chain of signifiers" aspect, however a word is only a very trivial and limited example of what a signifier is.
Foucault and Deleuze went into a completely different direction, they talked about very real and material things.

>>5251273
what is post-structuralism?

>>5251248
That guy was probably an idiot unable to actually read anything if he came to such conclusions.

>>5251273
>oppression and power struggles between races and classes
>very real and material things

Face it: Foucault was the proto Tumblrite whining about privilege and triggers

>>5251287
>Foucault was the proto Tumblrite whining about privilege and triggers

i really hope you think this, so you make a fool out of yourself one day saying it

>>5251248
>could it have been Foucault, guys?

it was blatantly Schopenhauer

>>5251273
Foucault conducted a history of ideas. Could you care to explain how this relates to the material reproduction of society? Given your previous statements you can't mention ideology.

>>5251248
As a history enthusiast and virgin, that creeps me out a little bit, I'll be honest.

>>5251283
That's the thing. Americans academics invented it. Nobody of them used the word. Most of them were very against it because it was a false grouping. But that's how capitalism works, right? Every thinker has to be categorized and simplified so that it can be consumed quickly.

>>5251306
so... what is it?

>>5251287
>Face it: Foucault was the proto Tumblrite whining about privilege and triggers
>>5250696

>>5251290
can you possibly explain why he is a fool so I can use it when I come across Foucault detractors?

>>5251290
I hope you're really a post-structuralist who reads Foucault so you could literally have wasted your life striving for ivory tower academia only to be barred because you aren't a minority

>>5251317
He was against identity politics. That was precisely his point, identity is a tool of power.

>>5251317
because tumblr is today's panopticon par excellence

>>5251323
Ok, but what's the point in not believing in something that everyone else believes in.

Do you just not check the boxes on your college applications when it says "race" and so forth?

>>5251315
Like, I said "post-structuralism" is originally an American interpretation of some predominantly French thinkers that appeared mainly in the sixties and later after structuralism become to shift in a new direction. But this new generation criticized structuralism from different directions and were influenced in different ways by it.

Here's one summary:
>Poststructuralism is an elusive term. It is a bit chronological, like post-impressionism, and a bit conceptual. As chronological, it refers to the theories that arose in the wake of the heyday of structuralism. We might think of recent French philosophical history in terms of three successive movements, at least up until around the mid-1980s. There is the existentialism of the forties and fifties, which is rejected by the structuralism of the late 1950s and 1960s. And then, later in the 1960s, poststructuralism arises in part as a response to structuralism but not as dismissive of it as structuralism is of existentialism. This chronological view is a bit oversimplified. For instance, the structuralist Lacan was writing well before the 1950s, and Deleuze’s influential book on Nietzsche was published in 1962. But if we think of the prominence of the movements, this chronology offers a rough idea. Conceptually, structuralism rejects the primacy of the subject in existentialism, seeing the subject as constituted more than constituting. But for the structuralists, what constitutes the subject is more or less monolithic. For Lacan, it is the unconscious, for Levi-Strauss the structures of kinship, and for Althusser, at least in the last instance, it is the economy. Poststructuralism rejects these monolithic accounts of the structuring of the subject. For Foucault, the subject is a product of the intersection of particular practices of knowledge and power. For Deleuze, whatever actuality the subject presents carries within it a virtual field of difference that can make it very much other than it is now. Lyotard, in his turn, takes up themes in both Foucault and Deleuze during different points in his career, but in his major work The Differend offers a view of the subject as both constituted and constituting through a variety of different discursive practices. I haven’t mentioned Derrida here, who is often thought of as the central poststructuralist. However, even though he does not figure in my poststructuralist anarchism, he can also be seen as a figure who sees the subject as partially constituted by something that lies outside of it and that cannot be brought into conceptual presence, like Deleuze. Although his view of what it is that does the constituting is diverges from Deleuze’s.
http://www.3ammagazine.com/3am/the-poststructural-anarchist/

>>5251330
>Ok, but what's the point in not believing in something that everyone else believes in.
The point is to change the world you live in, my friend.

>>5251373
Do you seriously think it's possible to change human nature so radically?

There's a difference between being an idealist and being out of touch with common sense.

>>5251030
>kids are forbidden to use the internet during the school year
kek

>>5251378
>common sense
...is another disciplinary power. We are all crazy and insane. Only thing is some forms of craziness have been historically normalized in a strict way and there are different mechanisms in place to keep it that way. There even wasn't a category of the irrational and insane before they started to imprison some people when rationalism appeared in the age of classicism.

>>5251378
human nature doesn't exist unless youre a filthy rationalist

>>5251395
epic

>>5251298
>Foucault conducted a history of ideas.
Far from it, that is his middle period. Then came the big break with Discipline and Punish. Read it, seriously. He is bathing in material side of things in that book.

>>5251395
So common sense didn't exist until the age of classicism? Is this what Foucaultfags actually believe?

>>5251437
As far as having such big political power? Not in the age before classicism. "Insane" were seen to have a connection with God before that.
But as far as philosophical conceptions go, yes, it did exist before, it probably appeared in such form around the time when Greeks replaced mythos with logos. Deleuze has a nice criticism of commons sense in the 3rd chapter of Difference & Repetition, if you're interested, and he connects it all the way back to Plato.

>>5251459
>Difference & Repetition

Is that considered to be his most important work?

>>5251304
>I have created the ultimate and perfect ideology of how a fair and pure world would work. In an ideal world, sexuality would not exist. It must be outlawed. In a world without sex, humanity will be pure and civilized. Men will grow up healthily, without having to worry about such a barbaric act. All men will grow up fair and equal, because no man will be able to experience the pleasures of sex while others are denied it. The human race will evolve to an entirely new level of civilization, completely devoid of all the impurity and degeneracy that exists today.
In order to completely abolish sex, women themselves would have to be abolished. All women must be quarantined like the plague they are, so that they can be used in a manner that actually benefits a civilized society. In order carry this out, there must exist a new and powerful type of government, under the control of one divine ruler, such as myself. The ruler that establishes this new order would have complete control over every aspect of society, in order to direct it towards a good and pure place. At the disposal of this government, there needs to be a highly trained army of fanatically loyal troops, in order to enforce such revolutionary laws.
The first strike against women will be to quarantine all of them in concentration camps. At these camps, the vast majority of the female population will be deliberately starved to death. That would be an efficient and fitting way to kill them all off. I would take great pleasure and satisfaction in condemning every single woman on earth to starve to death. I would have an enormous tower built just for myself, where I can oversee the entire concentration camp and gleefully watch them all die. If I can’t have them, no one will, I’d imagine thinking to myself as I oversee this. Women represent everything that is unfair with this world, and in order to make the world a fair place, they must all be eradicated. A few women would be spared, however, for the sake of reproduction. These women would be kept and bred in secret labs. There, they will be artificially inseminated with sperm samples in order to produce offspring. Their depraved nature will slowly be bred out of them in time. Future generations of men would be oblivious to these remaining women’s existence, and that is for the best. If a man grows up without knowing of the existence of women, there will be no desire for sex. Sexuality will completely cease to exist. Love will cease to exist. There will no longer be any imprint of such concepts in the human psyche. It is the only way to purify the world.

>>5251475
Yes, that is one of two main points in Deleuze's output. The other is his collaboration with Guattari in Anti-Oedipus and 1000 plateaus.
I would start with his Nietzsche & Philosophy though. D&R is probably too hard as a starting place.

>>5251475
Just want to add that that 3rd chapter of D&R I mentioned - it is quite clear if you have some knowledge of Kant since he borrows from him a bit there. But only to subvert his transcendental idealism into what Deleuze there calls "transcendental empiricism".

>>5250978
marxists are structuralists

>Plato was a moron!
>Philosophy was meaningless mumbojumbo before Francis Bacon came along and taught people the scientific method.

>>5251569
Imre Nagy would like a word.