[ 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: 88 KB, 640x640, 10369285_249278421935009_560353944_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5372531 No.5372531 [Reply] [Original]

Who is the superior philosopher out of these dudes?

Louis Althusser
Jean-François Lyotard
Michel Foucault
Jacques Derrida
Jean Baudrillard
Gilles Deleuze
Alain Badiou

>> No.5372555

Althusser is very dear to me, however I would not be able to determine the superior one.

>> No.5372558

I hate all of them, but I have some remote respect for Deleuze. fuck post-structuralist hacks

>> No.5372576

>>5372558
None of those guys are post-structuralist

>> No.5372577

The Russian Super-Athlete Rusev

>> No.5372580

Well, my favourite is Baudrillard, had to read some Badiou for aesthethics, ok I guess

>> No.5372582

Foucault, he's most cited academically. And he's written the most interesting material.

>> No.5372632

>>5372531
Althusser was a crypto-maoid fuck. Fuck him.
Lyotard wrote some cool stuff I guess, especially his critique of cybernetics.
Foucault depends on how you interpret him.
Derrida was a hack.
Deleuze (and Guattari) wrote in a nigh-incomprehensible prose that'd warrant their complete dismissal if it weren't for them coming up with some really novel and extremely cool concepts like the War Machine.
Badiou is a maoid hack.

>> No.5372643

Foucault.

Asked more important original questions.

>> No.5372671

>>5372531
I'm voting the same way I always "vote"

None of the above.

>> No.5372702

>>5372576
That was a mild hint against Foucalt who was post-structuralist even if he denied it.

>> No.5372713

>>5372632
What the fuck does "maoid" mean

>> No.5372718

Foucault

>> No.5372721

>>5372632
Hey.. you left out the most important one....

>> No.5372728

>>5372713
Something like Maoists

>> No.5372809

Barthes

>> No.5372821

>>5372809
Now that's an actual post-structuralist.

>> No.5372831

>>5372821
Barthes was more of a structuralist wasn't he. Derrida and Foucault obviously are post-structuralists, I don't know what you're on about.

>> No.5372858

>>5372831
Maybe to some extent but people like Lyotard, Deleuze Badiou, and DEFinitely Althusser, are NOT post-structuralist

>> No.5372882

>>5372713

I think its an exceptionally poor attempt to say 'Mao-oid'. It looks a bit clunky but then the only alternative is Maooid.

>> No.5372927

holy shit chumlee got jacked

>> No.5372941
File: 320 KB, 1173x1600, michelfoucault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5372941

Foucault

>> No.5372953

>>5372632
Deleuze's work w/o Guattari is very comprehensible.

>> No.5372957

>>5372531
the most important question that nobody thought to ask:

who's the broad and did she fuck him?

>> No.5372971
File: 92 KB, 780x512, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5372971

>>5372858
Deleuze isn't post-structuralist?

Welp, glad to know there are people who don't know how to read but still like to voice their opinions.

Pic related

>> No.5372978

althusser and baudrillard win vs rest because unlike them they were not part of this scam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_8_University

althusser wins vs baudrillard for contributing actual OC instead of pure gibberish

>> No.5372993

Deleuze, though Foucault has a wider influence in other fields like the social sciences.

>> No.5372997

>>5372978
Um, sorry you don't know how to interpret Baudrillard, who can admittedly be difficult, but he's the only person from the last century who understands the world we live in

>> No.5373008

>>5372531
Those two look like a couple of partners in crime about to heist a bank, chew gum and kick ass.

>> No.5373013

>>5372531
Derrida was a giant among these men

>> No.5373014

>>5372997
I detest Derrida, but Baudrillard is just one big giant Debord citation.

>> No.5373018

>>5373014
meant to write that I detest Althusser.

>> No.5373027

>>5373014
Indeed, Baudrillard steals a from Debord, and his analysis sometimes is just so dull and specific, but as I've found out, the academy just doesn't like Debord (or the other situationists, for that matter), so it's good to know Baudrillard when you want to make a (academichal) point.

>> No.5373034
File: 117 KB, 553x369, cambodia.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5373034

All these dudes were just frustrated french communists who didn't know how to deal with the fact that the Western world was argably better than their communist utopia in Eastern Europe, so they invented a lot of bullshit interpretations of the world out of their asses that portrayed western society as inherently oppressive and totalitarian, at the same time they ignored communist oppression. Also, their anti-americanism comes from butthurt that the United States surpassed France not only as a imperial power, but as the center of western culture.

>> No.5373040

Hegel

>> No.5373047

>>5373034
edgy

>> No.5374117

bump

>> No.5374121

>>5372831
Barthes was structuralist, and then later poststructuralist. He was one of the pioneers of poststructualism.

>> No.5374139

>>5373040
you should try not shitposting

>> No.5374141

foucault

>> No.5374687
File: 50 KB, 610x395, big sadly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5374687

>>5372531
Baudrillard! his work is the most complete description of modern society and provides the best lens through which to understand it!!

but Deleuze is a close runner up!! and Foucault rocks my socks.

and the rest are probably cool too, they're alright

>> No.5374689

>>5372531
Alfred Korzybski