Enlightened post-modernist intellectual:
— Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx (1993)
Enlightened post-modernist intellectual:
— Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx (1993)
Most PoMo critics don't even know what they're talking about.
Anyway of the "PoMo field" Foucault and Deleuze are the best ones.
What's up with Steven Pinker?
None of which any of the major philosophers associated with post-modernist (Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc) ever supported. But please, keep broadcasting to the audience of this Vietnamese silk-painting appreciation society how not-a-liberal you are, I'm sure this will eventually lend you a ML Internet girlfriend.
Yeah but Derrida's end-game is to keep you an aporia hesitating about what to do because you're riddled with doubt due to deconstruction.
Read about how much he charged a state funded American university to offer 3 lectures a week (in french only lmao) and about how he then continued to rape their budgets by withdrawing the right for them to archive his manuscripts that they had agreed upon because the school administration dared to investigate a colleague of Derrida's for alleged sexual harrassment.
He was a charlatan scum bag and didn't give a fuck. Laughing all the way to the bank and eating chips in his massive house.
he's one of those enlightenment shills who thinks that philosophy ended in the 18th century and that capitalism is the end of history.
Pinker might have problems, but he's better than trash like Derrida. The "French left" were largely a bunch of fraudulent obscurantists who declared that there is no such thing as reality or truth; everything is language as calling a baseball bat a pillow will make is such. Pinker might be a liberal but he at least recognizes the influence of the material on limiting human action and that our knowledge describes things that exist. The post-modernists, on the other hand have literally codified psychosis into a belief system. I spit on the fascist inspired post-modernist and the dogmatic social constructionist scum they spawned.
 the post
Deleuze became highly reactionary. There's a reason why everyone from Zionists to NazBols uses Deleuze.
why are fullcommunists like this
Derrida was obscurantist to be fair.
Derrida didn't live in a "massive house", in fact his home was rather modest.
Go to google, type in "Sokal". Read for a few hours. Then type in "Heidegger" and repeat the process. Then eat 100g acetaminophen pills so you turn an amusing yellow and stop blighting my existence.
How long is the anti-pomo crowd going to cling to this prank?
You've never read any of those authors and you've formed your opinion of them exclusively through memes.
I had never heard of this. Read the wiki page and that sounds pretty embarrassing. Is it bullshit for some reason or do you just think it's not that significant?
FYI, the prank wasn't the end of it. Sokal went on to write a book together with Jean Bricmont called Fashionable Nonsense about the abuse of terms of math and physics in the hands of those "intellectuals".
I would ask if you have any arguments but in all honesty I have no interest in hearing your gibbering about such indefensible nonsense.
I need proofs.
fug, I thought that poster was tripshit "Karen"
Itt: Anglo brainlets afraid of the masterrace Continental philosophers
The Sokal affair is far from the only hoax that ended up being published in a respectable academic publication, the hard science included (see Who's Afraid of Peer Review?). It's become sort of a "gotcha!" argument obsessional anti-pomos like to bring up at every occasion so they don't have to actually address the work of Foucault or Deleuze — who certainly shouldn't free of criticism, by the way. It makes as much sense to dismiss all authors associated with post-modernism because of the Sokal affair as it does to say that immunology was debunked in 2004 because the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet officially retracted a fraudulent 1998 paper that started the whole vaccine-autism business.
Sokal's book isn't about the prank.
Typical pomo lies
I can roughly understand what that means, on the first reading even. If I can understand it, how can it be REAL theory? Aren't you ashamed? GTFO with your German philosophers, we Frenchzone here.
wew, the ignorance
Fascism equals BAAAAD in case you guys forgot.
How bad at math do you have to be to not see that somebody is taking the piss when saying that the pi of Euclid, formerly thought to be constant and universal, is now perceived in its ineluctable historicity? But we are the ignorant ones, right.
there has yet to be a modern period
One is not like the others…
And how does any of that justify Foucault's hot take on the Shah's Iran, genius?
And that wasn't something your great Fuggoh scribbled down somewhere ironically with a wink well-understood by a small group of an audience of personal friends, he told that to the fucking public. That stuff about Wheen is completely irrelevant to the point made. It doesn't make Foucault any less horrible than he was. Or do you claim that Wheen made up that quote by your great French AIDSman? No? Well then fuck off.
Nothing in there refutes what that poster is saying. That the Sokal prank was successful no one is disputing.
foucault's support to khomeini is well known and criticised
the problem there for wheen seem to be the compexity of the answer not what it actually said
also after googling i haven't found anything suggesting this answer was given after been asked about state oppression as suggested by wheen in
so i have to come to the conclusion that pomos try to have the best possible understanding of things while anti-pomos like wheen obfuscate and lie
But there is a difference between different hoaxes, different cases of faking data and so on, namely: how sophisticated the hoax is. What makes a hoax really funny (or disturbing, if your field is the target) is not clever planning and elaboration, but the opposite: when lies are bold and silly and in your face. Here is some advice you have heard 99 times before without following, perhaps it will work this time: Actually read up on the Sokal hoax. Actually read the original paper. Actually do it. It does not take deep math knowledge to see it for what it is. What is the mental constitution of an adult person who is supposed to review that text and allows it to be published?
so yes he didn't "made it up" just completely changed the meaning by removing context
i can do it too, you see
Not really unique among the people who handle publishing for these journals. Shit slips through the cracks. Especially in journals like Social Text which didn't even do peer review at the time.
wasn't it published without peer review in a mediocre journal purely on the basis that an actual science professor put it forward.
which is embarrassing, but speaks more to the idea they probably didn't even read it than the idea that they act in bad faith in doing their own work.
like, you're telling me if Alan Greenspan submitted an essay about how "Lening broke the Econmony" to a third rate Economics journal it wouldn't be published just on the basis that economists from flyover state U don't want to pick a fight with a man who got to appear at government functions?
tangent: whining about the use and abuse of mathematical terms in a non mathematical context seems wankish. (do not object to this point unless you are british. only britons can understand the true depth and nuance of Britannic vulgarisms.)
What a trivial point. Of course all these things affect more people - but only because there have never been more people!
Is that what passes for deep thinking among the French?
Occam's razor points to either negligence or laziness (skim the abstract, have a deadline, this fills the page - fine, publish), rather than some deeper failings in the theory.
i see, so you truly support violent rape
read the review and admit that book you quoted is lying and it's author is a hypocrite who supports violence and oppression
That's fucking rich. They wanted a left without leftism. This is what porkies really believe, people.
Still not the level of predatory open access journals, though.
this was meant as an answer to>>2425650
*read the interview
the meaning of foucaults statement gets lost if you provide it without the context of the interview or if you flat out lie, like wheen did
What purpose could it possibly serve to use a term from a particular context in another if you don't carry over some of its meaning?
If it is a well-known term from some field and you change it considerably in meaning, you should spell out at least what you are changing. In the many examples of the authors criticized by Sokal and Bricmont the authors don't do that. Moreover, some of the terms aren't even well-known in their pre-transformation form to the audience of these authors, so you would have to spell out both original meaning and modification if you wanted to avoid confusion. But they do neither. What purpose does this practice serve? (And it is a practice, it is not a criticism of a particular text by a particular author, it is how this milieu of "intellectuals" who cite each other all the time operate in general. Why?)
Your comparison doesn't work, because the statement by Foucault is not remotely as strongly dependent on the context of what the interviewer asked like the statement "no" is (and the interviewer did talk about oppression of dissent, it's a topic in the interview, you are disingenuous by making this about the literal wording of the question right before the statement). But you already know that, of course.
you're a liar just like wheen is
typical of a capitalist mouthpiece
i have provided the pdf blogs.law.columbia.edu
you can read about how wheen completely lies about how "Asked about the suppression of all dissent, he replied:"
wheen is a fraud
because it sounds nice and gave me* an idea
furthermore if you encounter my* writing before you encounter the original technical context (quite possible with obscure terms) my version wins out in your head, it's only confusing if you know the original, and if you know the original you probably won't enjoy my* work anyway, so confusing you is no great loss.
*me/my in the general illustrative sense, it flows better than a hypothetical conversation between "you" and "them"
Yeah, but that doesn't cover what has happened after the reveal. See:
you're just try to muddle the waters
it's obvious wheen lied
any statement can be made into intellectual mumbo-jumbo or make it appear like a support of violent dictatorship if you lie about the context
wheen and everybody that defend him is just a bullshit artist
Read the thread, see:
the answer of foucault is him explaining the way protesters behave and view the truth, not as an answer to oppressive violence
wheen lied because he's a scam artist/fraud and the user that quoted him lied either due to negligence or on purpose
no matter how much "leaps" you make these are the facts
you have been exposed like that capitalist shill wheen
Sounds more like a predictable in group/out group sperg than an actual intellectual defense. There will be unrigorous fanboys in every discipline.
you're like a wall of stupid
i'm gonna assume you're trolling
i have provided the pdf, F3 to the part in question and see for youselves
wheen is a liar and anti-pomos ignore facts in order to support their baseless views
their lies have been completely trashed
Why don't you read the interview? Or at least read the thread. The interviewer already got quoted up in the thread, and not by the pro-Foucault faction.
you got exposed, wheen is a liar
deal with it
wheen presented it as it went like this
wheen:hurr durr pomos don't answer questions properly
(btw this anti-foucault guy also thought this )
how it actually went:
facts are facts and no matter how much word plays and lies pro-capitalist shills spout to further their agenda, this won't change
I think Foucault really gives you a benefit if you give him a second, close reading. The benefit is that you learn what a giant shit-heap on two legs some people are. Likewise with his fans. For instance, what's your impression when you read this:
A superficial impression might be that this person actually has read the fucking interview. But take a second, closer look at the words. You are asked to jump to the quote, because that's precisely what he did. He wasn't familiar with the interview before it got brought up in the thread, and then he googled it, and then HE STILL DIDN'T READ IT, THE FUCKER. Which is precisely why he is confused. Of course the oppression of dissent is a topic in the discussion, but how would he know, without reading it? He only looked at the quote and the sentence right before it.
Look at you. You think of yourself as an intellectual giant and don't even know what the enter key is for. Go play with used heroin needles and see how your philosophy makes you stronger than homophobic social constructs like AIDS, my dear bourgie kid "radical".
when the pro-capitalist mouthpiece gets exposed it resorts to name calling
wheen is a pro-american fraud and so are you
also i don't like foucault much i just hate liars
read the interview and stop shitting up the thread
lies foucault was asked
CLAIRE BRIERE: That's another problem: it's the problem of a different
culture, a different attitude to the truth. Besides it's part of the struggle. When
your hands are empty, if you pile up the dead, real and imaginary, you ward
off fear, and you become all the more convincing.
wheen is a liar
Wheen or Foucault? Advice: Read the interview before pretending to know better than others, maybe go read a bit about the exchanges between Fuckhead and Sartre/Beauvoir, definitely you should learn what the enter key is for.
why do you keep lying?
stop trying to move the goalposts we are talking about the lie wheen told about foucault, that you so passionately try to defend despite how obvious it was
based wheen, you sure told him
are you american by any chance?
read the interview retard
wheen lied and you took his lie for truth without checking (something you accuse pomos of duing)
Interview with Daniel Zamora about how Foucault shilled for neoliberalism: revue-ballast.fr
He wrote that in response to "end-of-history" arguments championed by the likes of Fukuyama, hence why he highlights the fact that extreme human suffering remain the norm across the globe.
Shoulda done it in a sensible way then. Latin drama queens.
English version: jacobinmag.com
"Critique" of Zamora's essay collection by Mark G. E. Kelly: contrivers.org
So, what did we learn here, kids?
1. These allegations are old news to Kelly, they have been known to him for a decade at least.
2. Yet somehow Kelly is not willing or able to refute them, instead wild-ass speculation about what motivated the authors must do.
Hmm, really makes you think.