Some of the chief vices of vitalism can be found in the work of Gilles Deleuze...

Deleuzians, vitalists and post-structuralists absolutely blown the fuck out forever.

...

This is the equivalent of saying legalizing gay marriage destroys the notion of love.
Deleuze, Derrida et al. criticize all essentialism. They don't replace one with another.
Retarded.

What is like that?

oh my godddd so many woooooords

how come nobody can come within 50 feet of these fuckers without turning into the most boring as fuck word-spouting machines

TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH:
Paragraph 1: Deleuze thinks everything in capitalist society, like politics and law and history and the famiily is trying to cut his ~*~metaphorical~*~ dick off, just like Foucault did. Deleuze hates 3DPD. Only in his imagination is he truly free to find his pure 2D waifu. D.H. Lawrence said the same things that Deleuze said but with different words, and people don't get that.

PARAGRAPH 2: Deleuze doesn't just save himself for his 2D waifu, he believes that by thinking hard enough he can shed his ties to 3DPD reality and become one with the animes. He gets this belief from Spinoza, presumably a huge otaku faggot as well.

PARAGRAPH 3: All the above wankery makes Deleuze a fucking terrible communist. Capitalism has totally fucked his thinking. Mormons are dumb too.

Sorry but Eagleton is a master of the English language.

And that would be great if he was writing a novel. But he isn't, is he? If you're going to write academic work, you'd best get to the god damn point. Spending 2000 words where 200 will do doesn't make you a 'master of the English language'.

hey, thanks for the translation
I hate these obscurantist leftist intellectuals

You have serious problems with reading comprehension if you couldn't understand the text.

dumb and proud

Oh fuck off, it's not dumb to demand that academics communicate their points clearly and concisely.

It was clear and sufficiently detailed. You just don't like paragraphs that are not presented in bullet points, you fuck.

It's only not "clear and concise" if you're too stupid to read above a middle school level.

Reading over it again, I realise that the only parts that I would characterise as lacking clarity and concision are the bits where he's adopting Deleuze's terminology against him - mainly in the first paragraph. I realise that I judged Eagleton based on my hatred of Deleuze's writing.

All of my points about clarity in academic writing still stand though - if you can rewrite a passage with half the number of words and no loss of content, you're not doing a good job of communicating.

polite sage for a stupid discussion

Why is Eagleton so based?

No, what was displayed is your unwillingness to engage and your negative predisposition towards "le academics."

I don't have a negative disposition toward 'le academics', I have a negative disposition toward that section of academia that peddles the illusion of profundity in place of content. Disproportionate ratios of wordcount to content are the biggest symptom of the problem.

And yeah, there's no point acting like you're clever greentexting me about revoking my criticism of one particular author while maintaining that my overall point is sound.

...

...

...

I don't think what delueze was getting at that all things dynamic are good, and all things static/orderly are bad. In fact, the opposite, as what was once dynamic can be incorporated into the larger order of things. Similarly, capitalism can be a very dynamic system at times, but to say this is hardly an endorsement of capitalism

People talk in the language of their world. Professors of English literature will talk like professors of English literature, and an imageboard dwelling NEET will talk… and so on. To become frustrated at that or to think it a sign of bad faith is to be an imbecile.

Truly BTFO.

Is Eagleton the best authority on Althusser BTW?