[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 668x521, 1568385269261.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14860765 No.14860765 [Reply] [Original]

>Poststructuralism
>Deconstruction
>Lacanianism

Is this shit worth trying to understand?

Have authors like Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, and Foucault discovered some esoteric truth that is just too hard to explain simply, or is their work obscurantist claptrap?

>> No.14860767

Lacan isn't unless you want to impress art hoes. Rest are good though.

>> No.14860774

11

>> No.14860782

its 15

>> No.14860783

Foucault and to a certain extent Deleuze are ok. The rest is garbage.

>> No.14860789

>>14860782
nk itisn t you dumb bitch

>> No.14860793

>>14860782
Are you still in school?

>> No.14860825

>>14860793
yeah your mom is teaching me sex ed LOL

>> No.14860838

>>14860825
I haven't been on /lit/ in the last couple of years. Glad to see you're still retarded as ever.

>> No.14860840

>itt anglos seething at the superiority of french thought

>> No.14860849

>>14860765
More like order of operGAYtions

>> No.14860856

>>14860840
You know I didn't realise they were all French until you pointed this out, but it makes sense. Not only are the French are the biggest pseuds on the planet, they are seen as pompous to the rest of the world. This gives me an even bigger reason to not read their garbage but have fun jerking yourself to pretentious waffle.

>> No.14860875

>>14860856
>the French are the biggest pseuds on the planet
>if you don't write like you're talking to children then you're pseud!
go suck your wife's boyfriends dick

>> No.14860878

>>14860765
11

>> No.14860879
File: 19 KB, 340x433, 1557271041368.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14860879

>>14860875
>nooo you have to write in a way that nobody can understand you
You realize even the French can't agree on what the fuck these people mean?

>> No.14860882

>>14860765
What are these retards talking about? Using PEMDAS, the answer is obvious: multiple the two 3's together to make 9, and add 2 to make 11.

>> No.14860890

>>14860838
Fake butterfly

>> No.14860918

>>14860840
>all the anti anglo sentiment on /lit/ is butthurt frogs who worship an AIDS sodomite
at last I truly see

>> No.14860943

>>14860765
Derrida, Deleuze and their descendants, and to a lesser degree Foucault for his (actually Nietzsche's) genealogical method are all you need. Differential ontology was the big post-structualist innovation.

>> No.14860961

derrida, deleuze, and foucault yes. they all had substance (sure the fluff-to-substance ratio may have been a bit off because french writers like to flirt with the point for pages upon pages until you're absolutely blueballed and then and only then do they make it) but they had a THING. lacan does not have a thing and he just says things for the purpose of saying them. unless you're interested in the cult of jouissance stay away from lacan he will only make you furrow your brow angrily as you try to piece together some sort of deeper something underneath his shit. you won't be able to because there isn't a deeper component. i fucking hate lacan.

>> No.14860994

>>14860961
Why does Zizek praise him so much? What is in Lacan's work that is so worthwhile for Zizek's own ideas?

>> No.14861054

>>14860765
How the fuck do you get either of those numbers? Either you follow PEMDAS and get 11, or you go left to right and get 15.

>> No.14861087

Deleuze is based; become a nomad mathematician war machine privy to your own sacred stash of gnosis

>> No.14861242

>>14860943
>are all you need
You don't need any of that horseshit.

>> No.14861348

>>14860994
Zizek is a charlatan for people who consume philosophy in YouTube videos

>> No.14861437

>>14861348
I there he has some interesting ideas in particular areas of philosophy, not so much in his cultural criticism.

>> No.14861502

I don't get why people put Foucault side by side with Lacan. I really think many of Foucault's points are much clearer than Lacan/Baudrillard/Deleuze shit. His books are not too much of a hassle to read, and he isn't spouting much metaphysical non-sense.

>> No.14861520

>>14861087
in English, doc?

>> No.14861538

>>14861502
because all these French post structuralists have, to the rest of the world, one thing in common - their cryptic language. that's why we lump them all into one.

>> No.14861546

>>14860943
D-do you actually seriously believe this?

>> No.14861547

>>14861242
Why even bother posting?

>> No.14861611
File: 31 KB, 850x400, dostoyevsky.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14861611

>>14860765
We fully embraced materialism and liberalism. Of course this would be the retarded teleology of such an outcome.
We killed absolute God and we sought to make ourselves petty gods. However, the material world arbitrary and ever-changing so the only material gods it will produce (and our epistemology) will also be arbitrary and ever-changing.

Materialism and Liberalism are a dead-end when it comes to philosophy. We're moving further and further away from Truth; none of this extra-material and "liberation" from the Truth was worth it.

>"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~Mathew 16:26

>> No.14861980

>>14861611
Please stop using words like liberalism. They are practically meaningless. In America liberalism is basically socialism. In Europe liberalism is more like classical liberalism (libertarianism). Colloquially a liberal likes weed and LGBT stuff.

>> No.14862056

We are living in a matrix, but it is not what you think it is. It's not simulated for us by a higher intelligence, it's simulated by us for ourselves and you know why we don't realize? Because most people don't have the capacity for it.

It takes decades to truly understand and explore our matrix and all of the mental capacities of them, it took centuries to build it. Our matrix has a name, logocentrism. your "rational mind", your good sense, your reason are all like gearwheels - we praise what functions in the head and argue that this is the truth, because it works in the head. This is our matrix. Materialism, our matrix. Our senses, sensations, stimulation, our matrix. The world that kills the pineal gland and your natural ressources of DMT, our matrix. Alienation from oceanic feelings, our matrix. Egoism, individualism, our matrix.

But the outside of the matrix lies buried in the paradox, in the contradictory that melts this structuralism which has been initiated with good intentions by our ancestors, Linné and those other faggots. We were not able to observe the natural flow of things, we were not able to observe the animal while it was alive and running, so we killed it and taxidermized it and observed it while dead in a laboratory, as isolated from everything else as possible, and called it that thing. But in this process it has long stopped being what it originally was. Our whole system of knowledge builds on this fallacy, and we generalize it onto each and everything. We are lost in this world of categories, gearwheels, machines and this is our own human-made matrix. The escape also has a name, it's withdrawal and sensitization.

It's the poststructuralism-pill. Poststructuralism is right, it's the truth, it kills the truth and that's the truth beyond truth. If you resonate with this go read Deleuze & Guattari or start with secondary literature about poststructuralism, Briam Massumi wrote a good book for example. Avoid Hegel and Kant at all cost, it will take you years to learn it, and then years to unlearn it. FUCK Hegel.

>> No.14862072

>>14860765
no. preexisting ideas simplified and in a marketing skin. study everything but them and you'll know more about their ideas than they did.

>> No.14862116

>>14860765
Why are you people so offended when someone is going meta?

>> No.14862124

>esoteric
I don't know what's esoteric about western and academic thought from less than 80 years ago. Everybody likes to pretend as if it's not the true, but the French post-structuralists were the last phase of true western philosophy, with everything after being either post-philosophical or post-western.

>> No.14862252

>>14862124
>Everybody likes to pretend as if it's not the true
Translation: everybody disagrees with me but I'll pretend they're pretending.

>> No.14862593

>>14860789
>>14860793
>falling for low level butterfly bait.

>> No.14862633

>>14862252
>>14862252
Name a philosophy that is both western (as in: didn't turn to shitty orientalism/mysticism/panpsychism) and actually considerate of the philosophical tradition that preceded it which came after post-structuralism

>> No.14862667

>>14860765
OP pic is Common Core teaching methods in a nutshell.

>> No.14862678

>>14860782
The perfect dumb dyke post.

>> No.14862681

Complete and utter waste of time.

IYI BS vendors

Won't be relevant in the future, isn't relevant now.

>> No.14862708

>>14860961
>don't read Lacan because I'm too stupid to make sense of him so I'll just assume that you wont either
Lacan can actually be quite insightful (when he isn't using insanely convoluted equations to represent his ideas, that is). I'm still convinced that the mirror stage is one of the most unique approaches to talking about the formation of the subject.

>> No.14862718

>>14862124
>>14862633
French "theory" isn't philosophy. It's just gibberish.

>> No.14862730

>>14862718
To a dog, Shakespeare is gibberish.

>> No.14862750

>>14860765
This is just my opion, but I just wounder if anyone else does the same. I usually mentally classify post/deconstruculaism as underlying machanics, but I do not intend to give them the be all and end all in my conception of a circumstance since those conclusions too would be a structure that is even more synthetic and often reactionary in itself analysis increases confusion. I then propose a modernist abstraction with gentle nodes to possible throughlines.

>> No.14862759

>>14860765

As this thread proves, Lacan is the ultimate pleb filter.

“I know, I know, I am taken for an obscurantist who hides his thinking behind smokescreens. I ask myself why. I repeat, with Freud, that analysis is the ‘inter-subjective game by which truth enters into the real’. Isn’t it clear enough? Psychoanalysis isn’t child’s play.

My books are called incomprehensible. But for whom? I did not write them for everyone, thinking that just anyone could understand them. On the contrary, I have never made the least effort to cater to my readers’ tastes, no matter who they are. I had things to say, and I said them. For me, it is enough to have an audience who reads my work. If they do not understand, well, let’s be patient. As for the number of readers, I have had more luck than Freud. Maybe my books are even too widely read – I find it astonishing.

I am also convinced that within ten years at the utmost, people reading my work will find it entirely transparent, like a good glass of beer. Perhaps then they’ll say ‘This Lacan, he’s so banal!’”

Lacan is the only one in that list who isnt coping.

>> No.14862824

>>14862759
>i don’t care about writing well as long as i manage to attract some sycophants who will worship the obscurantist ground i walk on
yup no cope there

>> No.14862829

>>14862730
so is gibberish

>> No.14862854

>>14861520
You're too slow

>> No.14862897

>>14862824

Im pretty sure Dr. Seuss is an obscurantist to you.

>> No.14863031

>>14862759
>I am also convinced that within ten years at the utmost, people reading my work will find it entirely transparent, like a good glass of beer
I like Lacan, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone be more wrong about their own work. Is he being sarcastic here?

>> No.14863037

>>14862759
>Taking psychoanalisis seriously.

>> No.14863050

>>14863031
I think he means it in light of Freud’s own legacy, in which his contributions are taken, even by his detractors, as “obvious”. Many of Lacan’s ideas, like the Big Other or the Mirror Stage for example, do seem really banal nowadays because there are so many similar metaphors in ordinary language and culture that make similar observations.

>> No.14863059

>>14863037

>”As for psychoanalysts, thank God, they are prospering as experts and as quacks. To offer to help people means guaranteeing success, and the customers are banging down the door. Psychoanalysis is something quite different to this.”

>”I define it as a symptom – something that reveals the malaise of the society in which we live. Of course, it is not a philosophy. I abhor philosophy, for an awful long time it’s had nothing new of interest to say. Nor is psychoanalysis a faith, and I am not keen on calling it a science. Let’s say that it’s a practice, and it is concerned with whatever is not going right. Which is a terrible difficulty because it claims to introduce the impossible, the imaginary, into everyday life. Thus far it has obtained certain results, but it still has no rules and is prone to all sorts of ambiguities.

We must not forget that it is something entirely new, with regard to both medicine and psychology and its outliers. It is also very young. Freud died barely thirty-five years ago. His first book, The Interpretation of Dreams, was published in 1900, and met with very little success. I think they sold only three hundred copies across the first few years. He had a handful of students, who were considered mad, and they did not even agree amongst themselves on how to put into practice and to interpret what they had learned.“

>> No.14863079

>>14860765
>10
How? It's either 8 if you're a normal person or 15 if you're a retarded mutt, but how do you get 10?

>> No.14863255

>>14860765
the answer is shutup nerd shutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutupshutup

>> No.14863323

>>14860890
What makes you think that? He seems exactly the same as ~4 years ago

>> No.14863356

>>14863079
3x3 is 9, dumbass

>> No.14863364

>>14862897
Im pretty sure your a faggot

>> No.14863505

>>14861546
>D-do
Reddit. Why do Deleuze and Derrida make Reddit-types seethe so much?

>> No.14863565

>>14863505
Reddit is the actualized theory of Deleuze and Derrida and Foucault.
Pure à la carte post-structural nihilism.

>> No.14863670

>>14863323
Doesn't have a tripcode

>> No.14863686

>>14863565
Idiot.

>> No.14863695

>>14863686
Define "idiot".

>> No.14863748

>>14863565
Not even close. All three of them would have hated its veneer of democracy, rabid scientism, and tyrannical thought-terminating liberal ethos.

>> No.14863777

>>14860765
It depends on what you're interested in and where you base intellectual merit. Are you interested in language, social structures, construction of reason, or psychoanalysis?

>> No.14863808

>>14860789
>>14860793
Imagine being 12 years old and thinking you’re smart for knowing the order of operations

>> No.14863820

>>14862730
To humans, Lacan is gibberish. But for whatever reason, some people pretend the emperor is fully clothed.

>> No.14863844

>>14862759
>Chomsky on Lacan:
Jacques Lacan I actually knew. I kind of liked him. We had meetings everyone once in a while but quite frankly I thought he was a total charlatan, just posturing before the television cameras the way many Paris intellectuals do. Why this is influential I haven’t the slightest idea I dont see anything that should be influential.

>Chomsky on these French charlatans in general:
Some of the people in these cults (which is what they look like to me) I’ve met:

* Foucault (we even have a several-hour discussion, which is in print, and spent quite a few hours in very pleasant conversation, on real issues, and using language that was perfectly comprehensible — he speaking French, me English);
* Lacan (who I met several times and considered an amusing and perfectly self-conscious charlatan, though his earlier work, pre-cult, was sensible and I’ve discussed it in print);
* Kristeva (who I met only briefly during the period when she was a fervent Maoist); and others.

Many of them I haven’t met, because I am very remote from from these circles, by choice, preferring quite different and far broader ones — the kinds where I give talks, have interviews, take part in activities, write dozens of long letters every week, etc. I’ve dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far, for reasons already mentioned: what I find is extremely pretentious, but on examination, a lot of it is simply illiterate, based on extraordinary misreading of texts that I know well (sometimes, that I have written), argument that is appalling in its casual lack of elementary self-criticism, lots of statements that are trivial (though dressed up in complicated verbiage) or false; and a good deal of plain gibberish. When I proceed as I do in other areas where I do not understand, I run into the problems mentioned in connection with (1) and (2) above. So that’s who I’m referring to, and why I don’t proceed very far. I can list a lot more names if it’s not obvious.

>> No.14864530

>>14863748
Hence I prefaced it with selected post-structuralism. Democracy, scientism, liberalism only when it's convenient but quickly pivots to ad hoc empiricism caked in social-political ethics. It's why I made the point that this reddit is the actualization of the theory; rabid fanaticism when conforming to accepted postmodern grand narratives, while conveniently refusing to apply critical-theory to these new grand narratives. It becomes Tactical Nihilism.

And it's not just reddit. Every institution marred in a post-structural worldview falls to this pathology; it is systemic to post-structuralism.

>> No.14864970

>>14864530
Jordan Peterson tier critique tbqh. Post-structuralism's end is neither practically nor technically nihilism. Also there exists no institution with any sort of political existence marred in a post-structuralist worldview. If there were it would be based and I would know about it.

>> No.14864979

>>14863820
>Naked emperor analogies
You sound like the bitches in my classes who argue with the professor and hate white man

>> No.14865002

>>14863844
>anglo doesn't understand anything outside of his anglo worldview
>water is wet
Chomsky was filtered. Simple as.

>> No.14865022

>>14865002
wew lad

>> No.14865036

>>14860765
I'm reading a mixture of Lacan, Tarski (metamathematician), Cantor (mathematician), Quine, and Sher (logician) for my phd writing sample. Imo, he is getting at something that has gone to waste because the only people who are willing to listen to him are in literature departments. But, his work has helped me flesh out my ideas on intensional logic, impossible worlds, etc. Yes I did say esoteric words to add to my legitimacy, but you try trying to get attention here when everyone's a chud.

>> No.14865041

>>14865036
>chud
Insanely cringe.

>> No.14865046

>>14865036
Can you go into more detail on what he's taught you about logic?

>> No.14865050

>>14865041
yeah and he didn't even use the term correctly since it's supposed to be a pejorative against right wing people. But I'm willing to hear him out; PhD candidates in logic are bound to be autistic, after all

>> No.14865063

>>14865041
Not as cringe as trying to get a PhD.

>> No.14865073

>>14865046
I don't want to go into too much detail, because I'm actually afraid of someone stealing my ideas (which is stupid, I know). But, his idea of the big Other is what I think sheds light on how to ground Logical Consequence, a subject of a lot of contention. I think that the way truth is transmitted from one premise to another is essentially through the creation of empty sets (zeros in set theory lingo). This is the big other, a decentralized social object that, although it sits in front of everyone, scattered, it is fluid. "Where it is, I must become" as Lacan would say. It legitimizes social (or logical) rules through their creation. In effect, truth is transmitted by the act of radical creations of falsities.

I've schizoencrypted this so only I can understand it lol.

>> No.14865077

>>14865073
tl;dr logic creates confusion/paradox to legitimize (or formalize) inferences

>> No.14865086

>>14865073
decoded. compiled. ran as an executable file. approved. I fucking love this song

>>14863079
>>14861054
well, chums, that would be the joke

>> No.14865098

>>14865073
This idea has already been explored by a lot of the cultural anthropological work that came after the post-structuralists.

>> No.14865107

>>14865098
Authors? Links?

>> No.14865120

>>14865107
Eric Gans

>> No.14865131

>>14865073
well, good luck with all that. I'll stick with books

>> No.14865137

>>14865120
thanks

>> No.14865188

>>14860765
This is why we have reverse polish notation.

>> No.14865223

>>14860765
You're not supposed to understand it, you're supposed to use their ideas as a tool for explaining why importing millions of immigrants is good for you and why you actually deserve it for being the descendant of colonizers, and why cuckolding, racemixing, and polyamorous relationships are preferable to monogamous families.

>> No.14865234

>>14865223
you have to go back (to Blacked.com)

>> No.14865427

>>14865036
This is your writing sample for applying to grad school? If so, including Lacan will get your app tossed in the crackpot pile immediately.

>> No.14865428

>>14865223
I was literally taught this in Hebrew school.

>> No.14865431

>>14865073
That's a load of gobbledygook. You are a pseud who will be rejected from any serious PHD program within seconds.

>> No.14865626

>>14860875
>like you're talking to children
Only children resent being talked to like to a child.

>> No.14865721

>>14865431
He won't because writing cryptic dissertations is in vogue today.

>> No.14865725

>>14865626
Unironically deep.

>> No.14865894

>>14865721
No, it is not. It never has been and never will be. Not in philosophy.

>> No.14865901

>>14865894
Lmao go read any modern phil thesis and tell me it's not purposely cryptic

>> No.14865918

>>14865901
I've read many of them, and no they are not. Anyone who writes pseud gibberish like Lacan et al gets filtered out of serious philosophy before grad school.

>> No.14866246

>>14865918
>Anyone who writes pseud gibberish like Lacan et al gets filtered out of serious philosophy before grad school.
Nice LARP.
Now turn around and fetch me a pack of cigarettes.

>> No.14866477

Everybody knows you just ignore that retarded math stuff and it becomes 233, which is the cabalistic value for “messiah” “frog” and “Borat.” Therefore it’s clearly a statement of divine truth:

ALL HAIL BORAT OUR FROG MESSIAH!!

>> No.14866486

>>14865918
PhD guy here. He's right. They don't accept cryptic writing. Also, I won't actually say anything about lacan in my sample, they would never accept me.

>> No.14866530

for me, it's 11

>> No.14866547

>>14861538
But Foucault really isn’t that cryptic. He doesn’t make outlandish Deleuzian claims or stupid Lacaniano jouissance bullshit. Feel bad for the guy, desu.

>> No.14866718

>>14865626
Based and childpilled

>> No.14866805

>>14863050
It's a fair point, but its absurd to think that writing as dense as that can make it into common understanding. I think you're right to say the ideas are obvious nowadays, but to hear Lacan call his own writing "transparent" takes quite a suspension of disbelief.

>> No.14866828

please excuse my dear aunt sally

>> No.14866915

>>14863050
This. Plus, he may be referring to his lectures. The Écrites were written afterward and shouldn't be thought of as his magnum opus or anything

>> No.14867344

>>14866547
>But Foucault really isn’t that cryptic.
This is true. He's just an obscene faggot.