/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2894394]

Is Derrida a charlatan?
Is Lacan a charlatan?
Is Zizek a charlatan?
Is Deleuze a charlatan?
is Badiou a charlatan?

I'm just wondering if I should disregard their entire bodies of work because they're "pseudointellectuals."
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.2894400]

Just Derrida.

[Anonymous No.2894421]

Just Deleuze.

[Anonymous No.2894423]

You shouldn't disregard any body of work. Charlatanism in intellectual means is not a palpable thing, you either buy it or don't and you'll read a lot of criticizism, but still, you either buy the criticizism or don't. And even when you do, consider for a moment, that a stupid thing said (in whatever conception you have on what is stupid), doesn't mean all is stupid. Chances are you could learn something from them and if you doubt that, there is no problem, read something else. But as soon as you disregard them, they become meaningless, because whatever good arguments they might have already escaped you.

[Anonymous No.2894513]

Yes, all of them. You wouldn't have the background in philosophy or psychology to understand them even if they weren't though.

[Anonymous No.2895815]

>>2894513
The OP was satire, you idiot. Expand on your impressive psychological-philosophical background, though; where did you study and what was your dissertation on?

[Anonymous No.2895817]

>>2895815
>The OP was satire, you idiot
ok then, what was it a satire of?

[Anonymous No.2895819]

>>2895817
He's the OP...

[Anonymous No.2895823]

No, they're not in any meaningful way charlatans.

[Anonymous No.2895824]

i don't know but I do love retro asian women.

[Anonymous No.2895842]

Derrida is okay. Burn the rest.

[Anonymous No.2895847]

>>2895842
Derrida is actually the worst. I kind of like the other guys, though.

[Anonymous No.2895849]

>>2895847

He goes too far, but I can dig the basics.

[ticks !DTNUV4cBL6 No.2895855]

Derrida and Zizek suck, but I would not use that definition on them.

Deleuze is all right, just a little hard to understand.

[Anonymous No.2895857]

>>2895849
He made philosophy really boring, sorry

[Anonymous No.2895862]

>>2895857

Read better philosophy.

[Anonymous No.2895865]

I like Zizek and I've read a bit from the field that Derrida set in motion but never anything by himself or any of the others.

[Anonymous No.2895873]

>>2895855

The thing with Deleuze is that he is difficult, but after the struggle to understand him, there's no payoff. It's like, oh that's what he's saying? That's it?

[Anonymous No.2895888]

I am also sceptical of these fellows and haven't got into them... What are some of their ideas, a few bulletpoints?

[Anonymous No.2895928]

I'm not very familiar with any of them. The little I've read of Derrida just seemed rather trivial and uninteresting to me. The little I know of Lacan strongly leads me to think he is a charlatan.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea of dismissing somebody wholesale without even reading him though.

[Anonymous No.2895945]

Derrida is a prankster. He is trolling academia and playing word games to show how stupid academia is. He's a clever troll, not a charlatan.

Zizek is alright. Not quite a charlatan. Works best in youtube format, understands that he is as much a clown as he is a philosopher.

Lacan is a charlatan. We only remember him because of Zizek.

Deleuze is a total fucking charlatan. Terrible stuff.

Not familiar enough with Badiou.

[Anonymous No.2895969]

They're all the result of leftism's degeneration into a religion. Their writings are valuable to the dedicated believer, but irrelevant to anyone else.

[Anonymous No.2896003]

Read Bataille instead
I swear if ANYONE calls Bataille a charlatan

[Anonymous No.2896158]

>>2896003
The biggest charlatan of them all. Writes from passion and parrots Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.2896165]

kind of but plenty of worth
fuck yes
a funny guy, a smattering of intellectual worth
no
havent read sorry

[ticks !DTNUV4cBL6 No.2896907]

>>2895873

That's a pretty good way to put it.

Same can be said for a lot of philosophy of that era, though.