/lit/ - Literature

We don't.

>>5856213
Having read some of her works I can say she clearly is a woman. A nagging complaining attention seeking bitch that won't shut up, but won't give any solutions either.

If you really consider reading her. I'd recommend you to change you major to STEM. At least you will get your ass raped for something that is worth knowing.

I like her a lot.

Shitty singer, if I have to hear Baby one more time

My captcha just asked me to identify several pictures of wine, I don't fucking believe this shit

>>5856273
Believe it or not, you piece of shit, you're still gonna burn.

i'm in her biker gang, ask me anything

>>5856265
> Having read some of her works I can say she clearly is a woman. A nagging complaining attention seeking bitch that won't shut up, but won't give any solutions either.

She really doesn't give any solutions. She insists that her obscurity is emancipatory (her word) and that she's allowing people to live in new, more freeing ways.

She earns over 230K a year.

itt: no one's read her

genuinely terrible thinker

Truly cancer embodied.
The queen of SJW.

>>5856213
i see this is going to turn out about as well as the virginia woolf thread

butler is worthless. the people who recommend her i guarantee haven't read him/her/it/mole remover

Maybe the worst writer to ever pick up a pen.

my gut frient judigthgh but-ler

>>5856213
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NawTYMOKP0c#t=80
What he says

“If Lacan presumes that female homosexuality issues from a disappointed heterosexuality, as observation is said to show, could it not be equally clear to the observer that heterosexuality issues from a disappointed homosexuality?”

I hope this is an out of context quote by her, because otherwise she is retarded.

>>5858028
No, her reading of Lacan isn't very good.

>>5858028
If that really is her, pic related.

intellectually-dishonest, out-of-touch creep manipulating hiveminded weaklings into agreement with an agenda based in her own issues with her sexuality and personal war against nature (see also Foucault's 'theory' based in his manipulative scheme to legitimize his proclivities for acting out some De Sadian naughty Frenchman fantasy of sadistically exploiting boys [and eventually, knowingly giving them HIV, but you know, *waves hands around*])

pretty much the embodiment of the cancerousness of the linguistic turn. will be deemed completely false and irrelevant by developments in neuroscience (and I'm not even a champion for scientism but I don't make the mistake of denying the natural)

>>5858041

>developments in neuroscience

Don't post in the thread if you're unaware of the subject matter

>>5858031

I mean this part here especially
>heterosexuality issues from a disappointed homosexuality

Doesnt she know how people procreate and tries to throw out biology as a social construct?

Gender performativity is an interesting and valid theory

>>5858045
I've read the material.

I know Butler will sometimes admit a distinction between gender and sexuality, but only when her argument begins to get challenged. her readers however, completely use her critique on sexuality itself, and she never corrects it. and anyways, I don't agree with the distinction anyways, gender is expression of sexuality (and I say that as a male with more than a few 'feminine' qualities).

>>5858047
Well, even Lacan throws out biology when it comes to sexualization
Homosexuality/Heterosexuality are only two of any libidinal choices

>>5858051
someone can act the other 'gender', but they're merely acting out expressions that have flowered - through an atmosphere of culture - but still ultimately from a basis in natural sexuality. echoing that material and psychological condition, but it's something one only imagine and mimic. it may be polite to call a 'transgender' person their preferred pronoun, and I do, but it's not really accurate and a male pretending to be a woman is kind of insulting women when he presumes to be one or know their experience

>>5858051
Gender performativity only describes how things currently are, that is it. There is no theory there.

>>5858041
you haven't spoken to any of butler's theories

>personal war against nature
what do you mean by nature?

>>5858121
>Gender performativity only describes how things currently are, that is it.
a theory describes things that are.

>There is no theory there.
"gender is performative" seems to be a theory

>>5858140
I've said all I really feel she deserves. she's not worth engaging anymore.

history will prove me correct here, and anyone with good instincts should be able to sense the same without needing to waste any further time on it.

>>5858147
>a theory describes things that are.
Not exactly.
>"gender is performative" seems to be a theory
Your premise is wrong.

>>5858170
>Your premise is wrong.
what premise? how is it wrong?

>Not exactly.
then define "theory"

>>5858166
>I've said all I really feel she deserves. she's not worth engaging anymore.
it doesn't seem like you've engaged with anything. you haven't said anything about butler's theories in any case

Totally

>another thread being turned into SJW shit
WHO COULD BE BEHIND THIS I WONDER

>>5858315

Judith Butler being the topic?

>>5858187
people who get tied up in this stuff always play the 'clearly you haven't read/processed this enough yet' card to shut down critics and imply someone isn't in the club. I've spent years engaging this stuff, including Butler's books, and have decided what's useful and what isn't. I understand it's reasonable asking for a more constructive criticism but there is a way Butler and similar material is written that attempts to draw you within the confines and rules of their language and eventually get possessed by it, and I refuse to go deeper having given it enough consideration and even application. there are far too many better ideas out there to waste my time on the likes of her. worst of all is its aesthetic merit, however, I discern zero potential going further into what she would establish. I find it cold, dead, uninspiring, effete, weak, dishonest.

I'm also absolutely convinced at this point that people who entertain her have an agenda as well, are usually denying something crucial - it, and other loser discourses, having given them a wall of obfuscation to obscure their most pressing issues behind, and I for one won't humor them. it's a philosophy of weakness and denial.

>>5858051
Agreed.

>>5858421
>>5858187

>>5858421

>weakness and denial

You're advocating a philosophy of strength, cowboy?

>>5857995

Ever notice Zizek has a shitload of friends everywhere?

>>5858433
or to say it another way, I don't think she even merits a serious, engaged response. I've gone over it in-depth before and realize it's a waste of time. and her bullshit should be self-evident to anyone who has experience in the world (I know the many responses to such a statement, but seriously, natural gender is self-evident and I call out anyone who denies it). nor do I owe or care to bother with a more in-depth explanation to you either, if you buy into her nonsense that's your choice and problem (and you possibly have some real problems if you're feeling her ideas)

>>5858458
no, but I don't believe in denial which is what Butler comes down to

>>5858421
Great post

>>5858458
>implying strength isn't objectively superior

It's as superior as butlers objective rejection of objective gender

>>5858421
dude, that was beautiful!

>>5858047
She thinks a penis and a vagina literally don't exist. Literally.

Everything good in Butler's work comes from Foucault.

Say what you will about Foucault's own work but he was honest and he did WORK.

>>5856213
....That is a woman?

>>5860336
she's gross right

she should just get implants for tits and ass, and cosmetic surgery on her face so she can be an object of the male gaze, which is her only function.
Dyke cunt, not worth anything, the unfalsifiable SJW

>>5857038
>She insists that her obscurity is emancipatory
what is this even supposed to mean

She makes over 200k a year after taxes.

"Emancipatory discourses"

>>5860371
Is she supposed to be living in the woods somewhere and carving her discourse into trees hoping others will stumble upon it?

>>5860396
Would that make it more or less obscure?

> The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

>>5858522
>>5858579
are you kidding. dude basically made the same argument he was criticizing his opponents for making.

>youre academic waifu a shit
>you just havent read
>yeah i read her and she still a shit
>wow *clap* good post

the only argument he seems to offer is that the language is difficult to understand, and that if it is difficult to understand then that means the ideas are bad. if the author of that original post offered a summary of her ideas, where and why he disagrees with them, i'd be more willing to say its a post with substance. as far as i can tell, he is in the same position as anyone who hasn't "spent years" reading butler, since he still hasn't shown comprehension.

>>5860416
>look, I'm posting that quote again

It's not that inaccessible if you're versed in theory.
Read up on structuralism, Gramsci on hegemony, and Althusser.

>>5860370
I think it's probably something like, only through struggling through her work you are forced to think rather than get a ready made answer. You sharpen the ability to think for yourself. I recently read a paper about this and made me reconsider my thoughts on obscurity or esoteric writing.

>>5860336

>>5860416
>writing philosophy as stream of consciousness

>>5860448
> you're too stupid to understand how Ms. Butler is freeing you with her discourse
> she thinks better thoughts than you

>>5860419
>the only argument he seems to offer is that the language is difficult to understand, and that if it is difficult to understand then that means the ideas are bad.
that's not what he said

>>5860490
I never said any of that. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

>>5860416
its pretty clear to me. maybe you aren't familiar with the concepts? it would be similar to looking at the source code for the web page your own and after not understanding what any of the code means claiming its obscure or obfuscatory.

i can offer a translation if you like, with an explanation of terms if necessary. she is in a general sense making a comment on philosophical theories. very basically, she is looking at the development of critical theories of capitalism, and saying that there can be a similar development in critical theories of power.

if you can't follow the long sentence, break it down so you can see the clauses. You'll see the basic structure is like

>The shift from X to Y is similar to the shift from A to B.

the rest are concepts that are related to theories X, Y, A, and B,

>>5860524
> dude, she's talking about power and critical theory, are you stupid?

it would help to have the full context

it's not a very interesting claim by itself

>>5856213
I don't know her. Is there any reason I should know her, or should want to know her?

I'm a 28-year old heterosexual white male. Is there something in her writings that suggests I should behave in a certain way and if so, in what way?

>>5860539
You could start by not raping wymyn anymore.

>>5860539
That depends on the way you behave.

>>5860448

Gibberish about gibberish.

This stuff is absurdly abstract to the point of being untethered from reality.

If you read that sort of language and find it helpful in any way in understanding the world, something has gone terribly wrong in your intellectual development.

>>5860524
I think it would be easier if she used punctuation.
Correct punctuation, possibly.

>>5860637

She's summarizing the theory of Laclau and Mouffe. While it could be more clearly written, she's absolutely correct in her summary. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's incorrect or "untethered from reality." Although, it may be untethered from your juvenile reality.

>>5860492
>[Butler's writing] material is written that attempts to draw you within the confines and rules of their language

This is what any philosophy does. The whole thing operates on jargon. Every philosopher is in discussion with the language, rules, definitions that other philosophers have put forward, and their theories generate their own languages, definitions, and jargon. Look at any other philosopher.

Heidegger:
>In spite of the fact that 'appearing' is never a showing-itself in the sense of "phenomenon", appearing is possible only by reason of a showing-itself of something. But this showing-itself, which helps to make possible the appearing, is not the appearing itself. Appearing is an announcing-itself [das Sich-melden] through something that shows itself.

Hegel:
>And since, at the same time, this object of its exertions, instead of being something essential, is the very meanest, instead of being a universal, is the merest particular--we have here before us merely a personality confined within its narrow self and its petty activity, a personality brooding over itself, as unfortunate as it is pitiably destitute.

Kierkegaard:
>Although thinkers say that actuality is the annihilated possibility, yet this is not entirely true; it is the fulfilled, the effective possibility. Here, on the contrary, the actuality (not being in despair), which in its very form is a negation, is the impotent, annihilated possibility; ordinarily, actuality in comparison with possibility is a confirmation, here it is a negation.

I could bring up obscure passages from any philosopher if I cared to look hard enough.

>worst of all is its aesthetic merit

Philosophy doesn't have to be aesthetically beautiful to be worth reading.

>cold, dead, uninspiring effete, weak, dishonest

Similarly, your emotional reaction to the text shouldn't be the basis for its truth-value.

The last two points here I welcome disagreement (many regard the Tractatus with mysticism, this is fine with me even though I disagree), but the first point he is trying to make--that jargony, obscure, obfuscatory, dense, etc., writing means that the ideas are bad--is wrong.

>>5860675
Yeah, but those guys don't say that their writing style makes people more free.

Butler specifically states that her obscure writing style protects her work from being co-opted by the fascist heteronormative patriarchy.

If anything, it renders it completely impotent. There are no Butlerians who are enacting any social change.

Maybe they petition their universities for gender-free bathrooms, but who the fuck cares if some rich kids get a co-ed bathroom to take shits between Macbook "study" sessions?

>>5860675
>This is what any philosophy does. The whole thing operates on jargon. Every philosopher is in discussion with the language, rules, definitions that other philosophers have put forward, and their theories generate their own languages, definitions, and jargon.
Yes but he's saying that she does it with the specific intent to mislead the reader, which is different from what you said in your previous post.

She's a woman and therefore her opinion is worthless.

>>5860700
>>5860708
>Yeah, but
>Yes but

So at least we've established that Butler "and similar material" are not after all unique for writing with jargon, writing densely, with long and complex sentences, or within certain "rules."

I'm looking at this post we're talking about, >>5858421, and I don't see any mentions about the INTENT of her writing style. Nor anything about intent in the forgoing discussion. This is a new point you're bringing up even though you claim it was the stake of the original discussion.

The only fragment that you might cite is his OP further up, which begins by criticizing her for being "intellectually-dishonest." He never explains what he means by this, and, when expands on his disagreements later, doesn't mention anything about her intent. Hence my interpretation that what he MEANT was something like, "the writing is difficult/bad, the text doesn't provoke me emotionally, therefore the ideas are bad."

Which is still something I disagree with. Just because something is written poorly, or inaccessible to a lay person, doesn't mean the idea is bad. You may argue with me on this point, but this is more general than Butler. In other words, if you want to say that bad writing = bad ideas, obscure/esoteric writing = bad ideas, or some other similar kind of formula, then you'll have to throw the baby (a great deal of philosophy) out with the dirty bathwater (Butler and "similar material")

>>5860370
It means that a symbolic order only has to be beaten symbolically and since that order is only orderly text, it has to be beaten with shenanigans. :DD

>>5860545

That's an overly broad topic. Also, how I should behave does, I think, not depend on how I currently behave. Whether I should change my behaviour does.

>>5860785
"Intellectually-dishonest" is a very fitting description for her writings. There always seem to be vast underlying normative presumptions that are obscured or denied and much of it looks like exploits and mystifications of otherwise understandable aspects of language. At the same time, she avoids making actual statements, by constantly phrasing her thoughts in the form of questions and thus dodging criticism by claiming it to be just one interpretation among many possible alternatives. Calling for contingency and fluid identity concepts just happens to be much easier if you are defined as a unique entity by your bibliography.

>>5860465
>I think it's probably something like, only through struggling through her work you are forced to think rather than get a ready made answer. You sharpen the ability to think for yourself. I recently read a paper about this and made me reconsider my thoughts on obscurity or esoteric writing.

I suppose it is true that vague, overly abstract writing forces you to think for yourself. Since there's no clear meaning, you have to invent meaning or try to imagine what the author might actually be getting at. But I don't think that's a good argument in favor of obfuscatory or esoteric writing.

Clear, straightforward rhetoric does not somehow prevent you from thinking for yourself and critically examining the author's claims. You should always do that regardless of what you're reading.

Furthermore, if I just want to develop my own ideas, I'm perfectly capable of doing so without using some vague text as inspiration.

I read to learn what other people think, and so I expect their ideas to be clearly presented. I will read difficult, poorly written work, but only if it's a primary source of profound ideas (Critique of Pure Reason being an excellent example), and even then the quality of the thought does not excuse its poor presentation.

>>5860961
>poorly written work
>(Critique of Pure Reason being an excellent example)

>>5860977

You honestly think it's well written?

Perhaps you've read the original German. Admittedly I've only read the English translation.

>>5860990
I don't know if I would say "well written", but my impression was, Kant writes much clearer than people frequently claim and often even summarizes his argument in the end of a chapter.

>>5858028

Why exactly is that statement retarded?

I need to read more of her stuff.
But gender preformativity makes all sense to me.

>>5861000

Well it's been several years since I've read it, so my memory may be a little vague. As you note, Kant has a reputation as not being a very clear writer, to say the least. Perhaps some people, myself included, conflate, to some degree, the difficulty of the underlying material with the difficulty of parsing his language.

That being said, I do remember run-on sentences in excess of half a page, which is evidence enough that his rhetoric isn't well structured. I recall spending a considerable amount of time trying to parse such constructions and untangle the numerous clauses and sub-clauses contained therein.

>>5861000

This. It seems to have become a pedagogical trope in the history of western philosophy, and it's bullshit. Kant is repetitive, and I like that about his writing. I have read secondary sources on the man and his philosophy twice as dense and convoluted than his own.

>>5860785
>this is more general than Butler

Here we go.

>>5860785
What are you trying to do, faggot? Why do you try to fondle my balls? You have established nothing. You have wasted your time reading all that post-_ crap. Nigger above mentioned Laclau and Mouffe. They are shit tier either. Deal with it.

░░░░░░░░░▄▐
░░░░░░▄▄▄░░▄██▄
░░░░░▐▀█▀▌░░░░▀█▄
░░░░░▐█▄█▌░░░░░░▀█▄▄
░░░░░░▀▄▀░░░▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
░░░░▄▄▄██▀▀▀▀
░░░█▀▄▄▄█░▀▀
░░░▌░▄▄▄▐▌▀▀▀
▄░▐░░░▄▄░█░▀▀ U HAVE BEEN SPOOKED BY THE
▀█▌░░░▄░▀█▀░▀
░░░░░░░▄▄▐▌▄▄
░░░░░░░▀███▀█░▄
░░░░░░▐▌▀▄▀▄▀▐▄SPOOKY SKILENTON
░░░░░░▐▀░░░░░░▐▌
░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░▐▌░░░░░░░░░█
░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░▐▌