/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16267582]

Are any of these post-structuralist French chucklefucks actually worth reading? Just in doing a brief overview of them it seems like all they were doing was taking the thought of German philosophers (especially Nietzsche) and applying it to specific aspects of society.

[Anonymous No.16267603]

Eh, if you're already looking for some way to reduce their contributions then you probably don't have the character to handle it anyway.

[Anonymous No.16267615]

>>16267603
/thread

[Anonymous No.16267618]

>Are any of these (...) French (...) worth reading?
In about 75% of cases, no.

[Anonymous No.16267693]

>>16267582
Yeah they are at least enjoyable to read mostly.
I would read them as though they were sphinxes telling riddles, guarding the gate to truth. Most of what they say are deceptions in some form: speculation presented as truth, historicisms based on exaggerated accounts, skepticism where it is undue ('pretending to be retarded' is Derrida's favorite game), just-so accounts that beg too many questions (Foucault's account of 'power' perhaps most egregiously) or just total gibberish. It's up to you to figure out what kind of frame game they are playing to solve the riddle and get at the truth they are attempting to conceal, or if there is anything to what is being said at all.

[Anonymous No.16267858]

>>16267603
I've already read Hegel so I'm sure I can figure out whatever it is the Frog boys are saying.

[Anonymous No.16267932]

No, just read Fashionable Nonsense instead and spare yourself of these glib charlatans

[Anonymous No.16269307]

Considering how much they are associated with the woke left, do they ever attack the concept of equality and equal rights? If not then they were retroactively refuted by Nietzsche himself and are not worth reading.
>inb4 marxists arguing semantics

[Anonymous No.16269323]

>>16267858
K. Then do it.

[Anonymous No.16269325]

>>16267618
>In about 75% of cases, no.
so name the 25%, dummy
>>16267582
when i had to read them at university i always got the sense that barthes was the one with the most alert, switched-on intelligence
foucault is kinda wild but maybe worth reading? idk, i have not, but some seem to like him

[Anonymous No.16269342]

>>16269307
The truth is they don't really write that much about politics, or at least not directly. Most of Deleuze's writing is not about liberating the oppressed masses, it's about packs of wolves and solar anuses and geology and other undecipherable shit.

[Anonymous No.16269350]

>>16269342
Antioedipus is specifically about ridding your life of microfascisms. They were all very politically conscious

[Anonymous No.16269356]

>>16269342
>it's about packs of wolves and solar anuses and geology and other undecipherable shit.
What the actual fuck. I knew they were schizos but this might be too much for me

[Anonymous No.16269363]

>>16269350
Yes but it's more about micropolitics, it's not calling for the working classes to rise under a red banner or anything

[Anonymous No.16269392]

>>16269363
>they weren't political because they weren't orthodox Marxists

[Anonymous No.16269402]

>>16269392
I wasn't disagreeing I was just saying friend

[Anonymous No.16269415]

>>16267693
If this is the case, why are these charlatans classed as philosophers? Playing word games that contain 10% insight and 90% deliberate bullshit for the shits and giggles isn't philosophy

[Anonymous No.16269419]

>>16269415
Because it's not the case.

[Anonymous No.16269436]

>>16269419
How would you describe their work then? I've had a certain amount of exposure to this style of French philosophy and never really understood its value, but I am interested to know what other people get out of it