/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3391145]

Can formal logic be deconstructed?

[Anonymous No.3391154]

not from within itself

[Anonymous No.3391165]

What is it to read Derrida? Is it not to read reading itself? But how does one read reading if one cannot read? Derrida presents his own "readings" of reading, but then what do I read? I bought this book- which itself is a negation of buying, an erasure of "that which is not bought"- in order to get to grips with Der-rida who I'd always-already had trouble understanding. I'd read two introductory texts that I thought (or "thought I", the presupposition of the presence of I in thought, and thought in I, an erasure of the thought-i (thought-eye, as in seeing or being seen, as an eye never sees itself)) would give me a nice solid grounding (to be ground-ed, an inversion of flight, of distance). I really understood them and had a good time dealing with the heavier concepts within(out) them but felt that I had to try reading the man himself. You can't rely on secondary stuff alone, so I bought this book to help me (or did me help? As Malarme said, or did not say, as saying is a not saying of the said-(un)"Said". Like Edward Said).

[Anonymous No.3391170]

Derrida and other poststructuralists are fucking charalans. It all amounts to sophistry.

[Anonymous No.3391171]

>>3391170
charlatans*

[Anonymous No.3391202]

what's /lit/'s opinion on deconstructionism?

[Anonymous No.3391209]

>>3391202
It's fucking trash. Sophistry. Verbal/mental masturbation. Calling Derrida a philosopher is like calling Kim Kardashian a sociologist.

To the rational human being, Derrida's writing will make absolutely no sense. And that's a good thing. Even Chomsky has admitted to reading Derrida's work and not being able to formulate one cogent idea from it.

[Anonymous No.3391214]

>>3391209
Where has this little fountain of ignorance sprung from?

[Anonymous No.3391218]

>>3391214
Also, you'd do well to read this in its entirety:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19670223.htm

[Anonymous No.3391217]

>>3391214
Lacan's early work and even Foucault's early work are important and worth reading. Not Derrida.

Derrida is garbage. Face it.

[Anonymous No.3391221]

>>3391217
>tries to use "I like their early stuff"
>uses it with Foucault
Oh dear.

[Anonymous No.3391222]

>>3391221
I don't "like" either of their early work, but I am not myopic enough (like you) to deny that much of it isn't important.

Oh dear, indeed.

[Anonymous No.3391225]

>>3391202
Superficial erudition.

The best is when Derrida got challenged by book, his response was basically "NO U"

[Anonymous No.3391226]

>>3391222
Foucault's later stuff is far more important, influential or whatever other similar words you might want to use there, than his earlier stuff.

[Anonymous No.3391233]

What a load of bullshit

[Anonymous No.3391236]

[Anonymous No.3391234]

>>3391225
really, is there a video of this or something? Sounds funny.

[Anonymous No.3391232]

>>3391225
Derrida did have a sharp response, but it was more like "such a shame for Sokal to be a scientist and get known for writing this rubbish".

[Anonymous No.3391242]

>>3391226
As a Chomskyan, you will never convince me that anything Foucault wrote beyond "Madness and Civilization" wasn't pure bullshit. Sorry.

[Anonymous No.3391247]

>>3391242
>As a Chomskyan
Are you one of those pseuds that likes to claim to have read "everything by Chomsky"?

[Anonymous No.3391252]

>>3391247
>pseuds

The irony in you using that as a pejorative is absolutely rich as fuck.

Yes, I've read almost all of his ~100 books.

[Anonymous No.3391256]

>>3391165

[Anonymous No.3391257]

>>3391165
10/10

[Anonymous No.3391276]

>>3391252
>Yes, I've read almost all of his ~100 books.
How does it feel being a walking, talking cliche? Do you feel you get anything from claiming to have read such dense pieces as the Political Economy of Human Rights?

[Anonymous No.3391280]

I'd like to have a valid opinion on Derrida but when I try reading his work I get a few sentences in, get mad, and give up.

2deep4me? Maybe. But I'm of the opinion that if you have a truism or something valid to say you should deliver it in a lucid manner.

[Anonymous No.3391286]

>>3391280
Do you ever try reading graduate text books on M-theory? (assuming you're not a physics grad).

[Anonymous No.3391284]

>>3391252
>Yes, I've read almost all of his ~100 books.

Woah. Norman Chompsky wrote 100 books?

[Anonymous No.3391287]

>>3391225
Derrida already wrote a book-length response to a "challenge" to his "positions" that fundamentally misunderstood everything he was trying to do (Limited Inc.) I don't see why he should have to write another when the arguments against him haven't changed in the past 40 years.
>>3391209
"Deconstructionism" is a term Derrida hated. Also, it's fucking ridiculous to say that he's not a philosopher just because you don't understand him - and you don't understand him. You're trying to project a facade of some post-structuralist sophistry onto a brilliant thinker and writer for the sake of maintaining the obnoxious "analytic versus continental" dichotomy, one that Derrida himself worked very hard to undermine

[Anonymous No.3391293]

I've always thought Derrida was simply a living work of satire. I thought he criticized the intelligentsia and the "ivory towered" academics by acting like such an absurd, excessive caricature of one that people would stop taking extreme academics seriously. If that wasn't his goal, it's arguably an effect he had. Anti-intellectualism is growing because of this stupid and excessively verbose new form of pseudo-philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3391299]

why are you discussing this here, plebs ? so noone can call you out on your bullshit ?

stick to blabbering biased shit about books you read to feel special and impress girls

[Anonymous No.3391302]

>>3391276
>Derrida apologist calling someone a walking cliche

I know you're trying to be funny, but it's just coming across as desperate.

I also can't really tell if you're suggesting that a piece of work needs to be "dense" in order for it to have intrinsic intellectual value or if you actually believe that The Political Economy of Human Rights is "dense" but either way you're dreadfully wrong.

[Anonymous No.3391307]

>>3391302
>if you actually believe that The Political Economy of Human Rights is "dense"
So you want to make out you've read its two volumes, huh? Do you even know what "political economy" means there? I guess you would have had to maybe crack open a book to find that out, so probably not.

[Anonymous No.3391308]

>thread turned into Derrida fanboys and Chomsky fanboys shit-flinging over whose spooks are less dogmatic and obtuse

fun fact: both are awful writers

[Anonymous No.3391309]

>>3391286
>equating the humanities with physics

[Anonymous No.3391319]

>>3391307
So "dense" to you means it has a lot of pages. Got it.

>implying political economy & game theory are complex terms when compared to Derrida's nonsense

Just give up now. Go back jerk off while reading Simulacra and Simulation or something.

[Anonymous No.3391318]

This sounds like the dry and impractical bullshit anyone could think of.

[Anonymous No.3391320]

>>3391293
This is what I've always thought too. It cracks me up that people take him seriously.

[Anonymous No.3391325]

>>3391320
It cracks me up to think of the colossal arrogance of people assuming that someone's entire oeuvre is valueless after reading a wikipedia summary of one eassy

[Anonymous No.3391334]

>>3391319
Hey, you've allegedly read it, I know I've read it. If you can get past not understanding what the work is about, how long it is, claiming it isn't horrifically dense (like a number of Chomsky's other serious political works), then maybe we could have some discussion. It's doubtful, though, because people who usually claim to be "chomskyans" or "to have read all his books" are nearly inevitably intellectual impotents trying to make out they've got a hard on.

[Anonymous No.3391341]

>/lit/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoKnzsiR6Ss

[Anonymous No.3391347]

>>3391325
analholocaust

[Anonymous No.3391349]

>>3391309
I think you'll find analogy and equating are different things.
Do you sit at home going
>implying the moon is a pizza pie
>implying those are sheep in the sky
>implying, if you were on the wall, you'd understand anything as a fly

[Anonymous No.3391362]

>>3391334
>>3391334
>Hey, you've allegedly read it, I know I've read it

Oh, please. Spare me the bullshit. Every anti-Chomsky drone, without fail, brings up that book, especially the second volume.

The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism is extremely well written, well compiled and is by no means "dense" unless of course it challenges your paradigm (which I assume it did).

Quick, tell me how you think Chomsky is a Stalinist and a Pol Pot apologist.

[Anonymous No.3391363]

>ITT people posit potentially legitimate and even-handed criticisms of postmodern philosophy and derrida, and derridipshits go YOU'RE FUCKING MAD!! YOU ONLY HATE HIM BECAUSE YOU'RE JEALOUS, 2DEEP4U

[Anonymous No.3391378]

>>3391363
It's funny because that was Derrida's response to criticism too.

[Anonymous No.3391393]

>>3391362
>everyone brings it up
No one ever brings it up, not that many people have read it. Which is why I brought it up. Shit got pulped.
>The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism is extremely well written, well compiled and is by no means "dense" unless of course it challenges your paradigm
Being dense is nothing to do with being intellectually challenging. Check it out:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/DominRepFascism_Herman.html
And that's one of the lighter parts.

>Quick, tell me how you think Chomsky is a Stalinist and a Pol Pot apologist.
I bet you're still not sure if he's an anarchist or a communist.

[Anonymous No.3391428]

>>3391393
>No one ever brings it up,
You're full of shit. The vast majority of criticism that is slung at Chomsky is because of what he and Herman wrote in the second volume.

>http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/DominRepFascism_Herman.html
There's literally nothing intellectually challenging in that excerpt, especially when compared to this drivel:
http://www.anderspaulin.com/index.php?/text/specters-of-marx-derrida-excerpt/

>I bet you're still not sure if he's an anarchist or a communist.
Nice try.

[Anonymous No.3391458]

>>3391428
>You're full of shit. The vast majority of criticism that is slung at Chomsky is because of what he and Herman wrote in the second volume.
No it isn't. You don't even know the book was effectively censored then:
>The title for this talk is, you may have noticed, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. That's actually the title of a recent book that I was co-author of with- my co-author is Edward Herman, and the two of us have been working together for many years. We- the first- our first book was published in 1974, a book on American foreign policy and the media, in fact, and it was published by a publisher, a textbook publisher, flourishing textbook publisher, which happened to be a subsidiary of Warner Communications Incorporated.

>Well, unless you're a very rare person you never saw that book. And the reason was that when the advertising for the book appeared, after 20,000 copies were published, one of the executives of Warner Communications saw the advertising, and didn't like the feel of it, and asked to see the book, and liked it even less, in fact, was appalled. And then followed a- an interaction which I won't bother describing, but the end result of it was that the parent company, Warner Communications, simply decided to put the publisher out of business, and to end the whole story that way.
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19890315.htm
Again, that's specifically why I like to bring it up with bullshitters.

>There's literally nothing intellectually challenging in that excerpt
Again, that's not what deep means. Reading comp, get some. I bet you even misunderstood what Chomsky said about Derrida, and have invented this little opposition through idiocy.

[Anonymous No.3391499]

>>3391458
"Dense" to you means boring. Just say you thought it was "boring" and move on.

And yes, the vast majority of criticism slung at him is because of that second book and his stance on the Khmer Rogue. You can say "no it isn't" as much as you'd like.

Here's what Chomsky had to say on Derrida and Lacan:
"I’ve dipped into what they write out of curiosity, but not very far: 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."

Straightforward. What the fuck could be misunderstood about that statement?

That article is from 1989. The Political Economy of Human Rights was republished a decade later by South End Press. Yes, the original publishing subsidiary was put out of business and yes it wasn't advertised at all but you can easily purchase the 1999 republished version of both volumes on Amazon right now.

[Anonymous No.3391578]

>>3391499
>That article is from 1989. The Political Economy of Human Rights was republished a decade later by South End Press.
It was reorganised into 2 volumes and published in 79. You'll find that the first volume is generally both rarer and more expensive than the second, presumably people buy the first, find it dense and never reach the second, which I would guess is the reason for the '99 reprint.

Here's a better quote:
>Since no one has succeeded in showing me what I'm missing, we're left with the second option: I'm just incapable of understanding. I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons. There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures.

Even if you look at your quote in context, Chomsky always leaves open that maybe he misunderstands. And frankly, he does. He isn't well versed enough in the philosophical mindset and tradition of guys like Derrida. Derrida in particular requires a good grounding in Heidegger, who is both extremely dense and rather difficult to get you head around. And so, to Chomsky, yes it is very much something like the weight of neutrinos.

[Marxist Post-Structuralist ENS Teacher and Feminist Activist No.3394075]

no it cannot

[Anonymous No.3394104]

Formal logic would be considered myth by now

[Anonymous No.3394124]

>>3391578
>Even if you look at your quote in context, Chomsky always leaves open that maybe he misunderstands. And frankly, he does. He isn't well versed enough in the philosophical mindset and tradition of guys like Derrida. Derrida in particular requires a good grounding in Heidegger, who is both extremely dense and rather difficult to get you head around. And so, to Chomsky, yes it is very much something like the weight of neutrinos.

>(1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it.

I respect your rhetorical guile here, but not your reasoning. Ignoring his entire argument and replying selectively to what you literally quoted yourself amuses me.

He claims he knows people that can make "neutrinos" intelligible to him and go on to learn more on his own, but this is not the case with him and continental philosophy. He's famous as far as academics go. He'd have to know someone, right?

Resorting to the tried pomo apologist refrain of "well he just doesn't get it" is beneath you sir. You need something craftier.

[Anonymous No.3394154]

>>3394104
A is A mother fucker.

[Anonymous No.3394163]

>>3391578
Saying "he just simply doesn't get it because he's not smart enough to understand philosophy" when referring to one of the most cited intellectuals in history (he's in the same company of people like Plato, Shakespeare, Freud and Marx) isn't a cogent argument. It, like the rest of deconstructionism, is sophistry at best.

Also, what part of "(1) and (2) don't hold" do you not understand? He has clearly tried to have friends and acquaintances within the sphere of continental philosophy try to explain the works of Derrida and Lacan to him and the only thing he gets from it is that what they are saying are very obvious truisms dressed up in pretentiousness gobbledygook (what's the point in that?) or what they say is outright false. And he's right.

[Anonymous No.3394174]

>>3394124
>Resorting to the tried pomo apologist refrain of "well he just doesn't get it" is beneath you sir.
A strong stench of rationalwiki.org is coming from this sentence.

He's specifically talking about whether neutrinos have weight, and having knowledge of that area, no the mechanisms behind it can't be made intelligible to the lay reader without going out of your way to turn the lay reader into someone vaguely knowledgeable. There's a lot of information that is needed to be processed to get to the point of "neutrinos having weight and why that's weird" just like there's a lot of information to process to get to "how things deconstruct themselves and what that says".

[Anonymous No.3394178]

>>3394163
What part of
>I'm certainly willing to grant that it may be true, though I'm afraid I'll have to remain suspicious, for what seem good reasons.
don't you understand? He's justifying a suspicion, nothing more.

[Anonymous No.3394184]

>>3394174
>He's specifically talking about whether neutrinos have weight, and having knowledge of that area, no the mechanisms behind it can't be made intelligible to the lay reader without going out of your way to turn the lay reader into someone vaguely knowledgeable. There's a lot of information that is needed to be processed to get to the point of "neutrinos having weight and why that's weird" just like there's a lot of information to process to get to "how things deconstruct themselves and what that says".

So you're saying he doesn't understand either topic now, and that they're analogous.

>quibbling with how he characterizes the issue
>insinuating chomsky is being dishonest

Well, if you didn't trust what he was saying to begin with, why didn't you say so?

[Anonymous No.3394187]

>>3394178
>for what seem good reasons.

Meaning that no one can cogently explain deconstructionism without eventually resorting to "lel u dont understand it cuz u dont get Heidegger cuz ur not smart"

Derrida is satire at best, sophistry at worst. Deal with it.

[Sage No.3394192]

>>3391287
>"Deconstructionism" is a term Derrida hated
>He hated so much that always say it every 5 seconds.

[Anonymous No.3394208]

>>3394187
>Meaning that no one can cogently explain deconstructionism without eventually resorting to "lel u dont understand it cuz u dont get Heidegger cuz ur not smart"
Let's test your mind reading abilities. From the same talk as has been quoted throughout:
>Of course, if it's all beyond my comprehension, which is possible, then I'm just a lost cause, and will be compelled to keep to things I do seem to be able to understand, and keep to association with the kinds of people who also seem to be interested in them and seem to understand them (which I'm perfectly happy to do, having no interest, now or ever, in the sectors of the intellectual culture that engage in these things, but apparently little else).
I see your mind reading experiment as a failure I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.3394216]

>>3394174
Explain this to me, because I'm legitimately curious. Why can't Derrida or Lacan or any deconstructionist explain post-structuralism in lucid language, much in the same manner Sagan explained astrophysics in simple language?

And don't tell me you need to be versed in Heidegger to understand Derrida. "Being and Time" is FAR more cogent than anything I've read of Derrida's.

Here's a Derrida quote:
"Each time that I say ‘deconstruction and X (regardless of the concept or the theme),’ this is the prelude to a very singular division that turns this X into, or rather makes appear in this X, an impossibility that becomes its proper and sole possibility, with the result that between the X as possible and the ‘same’ X as impossible, there is nothing but a relation of homonymy, a relation for which we have to provide an account."

What's the actual point in writing in such a ridiculous manner? If you have a point to make, make it.

[Anonymous No.3394218]

>>3394184
>So you're saying he doesn't understand either topic now, and that they're analogous.
He plainly states he understands neither:
>There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently.
But he has faith that there is a straightforward route to learning about them. I would guess it's something to do with being at MIT and not at the Sorbonne.

[Anonymous No.3394222]

>>3394208
>which is possible

I'm guessing your brain subconsciously skipped that part.

It's very clear you hold a strong anti-Chomsky stance, and would rather believe that arguably the smartest American intellectual "doesn't get it" rather than believe that post-structuralism is garbage. Just move on.

[Anonymous No.3394232]

>You don't get it!
>No, YOU don't get it!
>You're just hiding behind saying I don't get it!
>No, you are!
>Chomsky is a hack!
>Derrida is a hack!
>You're a hack!

/lit/,

/lit/ never changes

[Anonymous No.3394233]

>>3394216
>Why can't Derrida or Lacan or any deconstructionist explain post-structuralism in lucid language
To simply and clearly explain something is already assuming something structural, that there is some overriding system that can directly be explained. Post-structuralism doesn't think that, and to uncover what is happening from a post-structuralist perspective, you almost have to sneak up on it from behind. Deconstruction is a little easier, Derrida goes a long way to making a route from structural paradigms to deconstruction, but it's still not obvious, partly because it's so entrenched in the thinking of other complex philosophers. Metaphysics of presence is also a little difficult to properly get your head around.

But, yeah, a big problem is that it isn't reducible to something like a method or flowchart like you could do in structuralism.

[Anonymous No.3394255]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Neu4kI_Yi0A

>mfw when watching this dreck

[Anonymous No.3394263]

>>3391145
> Can formal logic be deconstructed?
Not only it can, it already has been.

Look up Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.

[Anonymous No.3394265]

>>3394222
> the smartest American intellectual
Chomsky is a quack scientist, the only field he made any useful contribution to is Computer Science, and that only accidentally.

[Anonymous No.3394267]

>>3394255
>yfw Derrida wasn't a vegan or even a vegetarian

So much for "violent gestures" lel

[Anonymous No.3394276]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

>interviewer asks Derrida to talk about love
>he spaghettis all over the place

[Anonymous No.3394280]

>>3391287
>I don't see why he should have to write another when the arguments against him haven't changed in the past 40 years.

Derrida is dead bro... raise him from dead and make write another defence?

[Anonymous No.3394286]

>>3394267
>yfw Derrida wasn't a vegan or even a vegetarian
The guy says that separating animals from humans is stupid. At the moment of eating, obviously the human animal binary deconstructs itself.

[Anonymous No.3394287]

>>3394276
That interviewer's French is pretty terrible.

[Anonymous No.3394290]

>>3394280
If he wrote it, he'd still be dead.

[Anonymous No.3394301]

>>3394265
Your ignorance is showing.

Here's some fields Chomsky's work has objectively contributed to: generative grammar, cognitive psychology, immunological biochemistry, evolutionary psychology, NLP, phonology and combinatorialist mathematics.

Get back to me when Derrida's sophistry has had such a wide sphere of influence.

[Anonymous No.3394305]

>>3394286
There's not one scientist on planet Earth that separates animals from humans.

Very clear Derrida had little to no grasp on taxonomy, among many other things.

[Anonymous No.3394309]

>>3394301
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thinkers_influenced_by_deconstruction

[Anonymous No.3394319]

>>3394305
There's a sense in which we use animal to separate humans from "other" animals: I am not an animal, don't eat like an animal, don't work with children or animals etc. which is the day to day meaning.

[Anonymous No.3394320]

>>3394309
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thinkers_influenced_by_deconstruction

Cool, a list of people that sit in ivory towers will discussing nonsense.

Like I said, get back to me when they've had any sort of influence.

[Anonymous No.3394322]

>>3394320
while*

[Anonymous No.3394326]

>>3394320
>Listed NLP and Evolutionary Psychology
>thinks it wise to call other fields nonsense
There's a saying about people living in glass houses you know.

[Anonymous No.3394330]

>>3394326
>dat 2nd grade reading comp

I'm not saying that the fields Chomsky has influenced are good or bad. I'm sure we could have a long discussion about the pitfalls of NLP. What I'm saying is that his sphere of influence goes far beyond just the sphere of computer science, which is what was originally postulated and which is what I was originally responding to.

It also goes far beyond the reach of influence Derrida had, which was just to influence other like-minded poststructuralists.

[Anonymous No.3394336]

Oh come on, Of Grammatology provided a superb and useful counterpoint to certain axioms of Saussurean linguistics as well as the work of anthropologists like Jack Goody.

You don't have to be a die hard post-modernist to think that. And if you have a genuine interest in linguistics beyond the undergrad curricula, you need to be aware of it. Also, the whole Ong-Derrida debate is worth looking at.

Damn, even Derrida said Of Grammatology was his only work that achieved anything significant.

The whole problem, imo, was the emergent culture of academic celebrity in America during the 90s. Derrida became an ivy league pet continental philosopher and 'deconstructionism' emerged as a cause celebre, on the back of which a lot of of young academics could court controversy, raise their profile and further their career. E.G. Jonathan Goldberg.

PS I got to shake the manlet's writing hand at the University of York, just before he died. Didn't wash it for like 3 hours.

[Anonymous No.3394339]

>>3394320
You probably haven't even heard of half of these people. This is no true scotsman level bullshit, pal.

[Anonymous No.3394342]

>>3394330
So you think people are born post-structuralists or something? You seem to be saying "Derrida had no influence because he only influenced people who were influenced by him".

[Anonymous No.3395043]

can formal logic be deconstructed ?
i dont know. im sure he would find a way though.

is deconstruction analyzing a jpeg pixel by pixel rather than talking about what's happening in the picture ? probably. that's not to say that it lacks merit

[Anonymous No.3395052]

>>3394342
No. I'm waiting for empirical evidence that Derrida's mental masturbation inspired anyone other than the fuckheaded hipsters that pretend to read his garbage.

>>3394339
You're right. I haven't heard of them. Because they've done absolutely nothing worth mentioning. Try again.

[Anonymous No.3395071]

>>3394339
>>3395052
Except Harold Bloom, but when you stop and think about it, what exactly has he accomplished? He wrote a few shitty books about Shakespeare?

Seriously, I looked through that entire list and over 90% of it is "theorists" from various shitty universities. Am I supposed to be fucking impressed?

[Anonymous No.3395083]

>>3395071
Most of them are from Ivy League or equivalent. Ignorance is no substitute for argument.