Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Does anyone have any opinions on this?
is a pronoun and an adjective
nope, your grammar is suck.
you idea-whore, does this count as essay-cheating?!
there I said it.
a LIBRARY which houses many objects called BOOKS which may of great use to you if you were to READ them and take on some of the IDEAS inside them. failing that I'm sure there's something you could use on the internet, have you heard of GOOGLE?
he's well-read too. i'd love to hold his hand and walk down a leafy path with him. and yes, that is a euphemism for "i'd well let him touch my vag"
he shouted as the Sag Aloo rained down from the masses stood on the gantry.
can't find anything!
is notable mostly for its low standards of scholarship, undue generalisations and indecipherable prose. Where Frankenstein fits into that, I have no idea.
this takes me back to my least favourite classes at uni. best of luck to you.
his History of Sexuality.
I'm guessing this is something from his stuff about punishment and control, Madness & Civilisation and that?
about "Western Man is a confessing animal" and how, by confessing, you become a subject in "both senses of the word", that is of having the autonomy to express yourself as a subject, but also being subjected by the pre-existing discourse.
i'm going to talk about how the monster becomes as a subject as he learns to speak, but at the same time remains monstrous and doesn't become a "type" because he remains indescribable and so never becomes a true subject. or something.
And all I can remember is that I finished it and said, "hmm, yes, that's probably mostly right."
If I had my copies of the books with me I could try and help but unfortunately they're back in my uni room...
i think i'm ok now. after much thinking.
foucault is so hard, but so awesome :)
same thing for calaban init. nice little comparison.
*adds it in*
Foucault loves fisting. He called it 'a radically altered state being'.
Personally I think Foucalt theories on anything other than fisting are voluminous and ultimately meaningless intellectual posturing.
is quite good
agree on the fisting thing though
foucault made me analyse everything way too much. it's awesome but unhealthy. ignorance is bliss.
Ive only ever read Discipline and Punish and a few scattered essays, but I think hes hardly more obtuse than, say, a lot of feminist/psychoanalytic writers. There was a bit of critical theory bashing on Radio 4 this morning, in which they threw off most literary theory as "bonkers". Id say its pretty useless a lot of the time, quite removed from the actual creative act, but quite fascinating a lot of the time nonetheless (this is of no help)
It's easy to slag off theory, but critical theorists don't help themselves with the way they write and a lot of the terms they use.
foucault, although not the easiest to read, is one of the few i found to have some substance behind the smoke and mirrors.
this is just laziness on your part.
calling theoretical terms 'smoke and mirrors' is just petty cynicism.
About how people expect cultural discourse to be transparent and simple when scientific discourse ain't
i like him when he's saying stuff like that
the nature of what theyre challenging. if theyre offering up a critique of language, then they have to be very careful to not exhibit the same generalisations they are calling into question (leading to unreadability). I dont think its laziness however, I agree with ImageChange, they dont help themselves (and Foucault has a lot of interesting things to say about the nature of codified language). I wouldnt lump Foucault in with someone like Irigaray or someone like that.
my linguistic skills need a buff
but if the first bit of what you say is true, why does 'help themselves' matter? surely being careful about their own project is more important?
youre quite right, its an impossible situation. But I think, and this might sound stupid, but there is a question of degrees, and not that this is always the case (or even the in predominant sense) but sometimes there is the propensity to willfully confound the reader to give the impression of weight and substance. Its especially disturbing when you read back and forth academic journal pieces furiously throwing back willful misreadings of the other for the sake of the grand totem in academia nowadays, the "production of discourse"
that we can debate the term "misreading" endlessly (and with justification), its like somebody only EVER taking the alternate reading of what you are saying. And thats annoying and unproductive.
and within the context of academic discussion ive come across that as well. but i think the other side of it is that people who either like to dismiss critical theory out of blind prejudice or laziness cite the terminology as a reason why is worthless just so they dont have to bother engaging with it. when, if youre dealing with the source texts you can usually get to grips with why the terminology is being used and what it means if youre willing to put in the effort. different stages of the same problem i suppose, i think assuming that all critical theory is 'smoke and mirrors' is just laziness though. giving people a theoretical framework to talk about complicated ideas in is pretty useful if youre actually engaged in doing so...
youre right, especially about dealing with the source text. reading the primary source makes the whole situation a lot easier - secondary texts are often (and I suppose necessarily) constructed upon terminology, but they often dislocate the language and make the whole picture seem more complicated than it actually is
If you're trying to write about the limits of everyday language and what might lie beyond them, then it's necessary in many instances to formulate new modes of expression, or at least to stretch conventional ideas of explication & clarity. This is why people like Kristeva tend to articulate their projects in terms of poetics rather than philosophy.
Of course the whole enterprise ends up in intellectual elitism & obfuscation for its own sake, but this is the fault of bellend academics rather than radical critical theorists.
my least favourite theorists:
(or any kristeva)
For the other three, that pretty much fits with my tastes too; foucault is really good!
Although I do find saussure's course in general linguistics relatively readable. Even if some of his assumptions are a bit questionable, at least he's explicit about them.
Also, I love
Stanley Fish (even though its a bit intuitive)
but I fucking adore Jean-François Lyotard
try harder with him!
but yep, worth the effort. And, if I may be so poncesome, he doesn't translate well. Try him in French.
Eagleton is always a good read but he's become very formulaic. It's really time for him to stop trundling out the old humourously surreal analogies, e.g. "One cannot expect straightforward analysis from Foucault, any more than I can expect bread and butter pudding from the back end of a three-legged giraffe". Last year I contacted him to ask permission to broadcast a lecture he'd given. He said Yes, but "make sure you leave in the jokes".
Also, his recent forays into theology are pretty embarrassing.
- I do philosophy
- You do English Literature
SO WHY THE FUCK DON'T I GET TO DO FOUCAULT?
but he's fit!
He looks like an evil scientist from a movie, only one who's about to touch you (and presumably fist you afterwards as well).
I fucking love Derrida. No matter what some people think about him (and there's a large range of views on him, clearly) I still think it's ridiculous that he's dismissed off hand by so many departments.
Their arguments seem to go like this:
"Derrida is dangerous! His work undermines 4000 years of human thought, and is highly irrational, and thus cannot be trusted."
"But it's irrational specifically because it's a critique of the project of rationality. Surely that deserves some investigation?"
"We demand certain standards of rationality which deconstruction cannot provide."
"That's because it criticises those standards!"
I did a subsidiary module in deconstruction in my first year with the critical studies department. I found it deeply more interesting and viable than most projects in the analytical tradition.
I ended up failing most of my exams though, because instead of answering the questions I was a smartarse and decided showing that the question made certain untenable assumptions would show that it was irrelevant to bother answering it.
So now I bite back my tongue and accept I have to argue using techniques I don't believe in just to get the degree.
Nihilism and entropy ftw.
"I ended up failing most of my exams though, because instead of answering the questions I was a smartarse and decided showing that the question made certain untenable assumptions would show that it was irrelevant to bother answering it."
I think I do this every time I have to write an essay. It totally depends on who is marking it, but my preferred lecturers live to mark essays like this :)
but i'm rly busy so can't help you :(
in the future though!
Foucault notes that when man sees himself as involved in the world and also as a transcendental source of meaning, he enters into a strange relation with his own involvements. His use of language that he does not master, his inherence in a living organism he does not fully penetrate with thought, and the desires that he cannot control must all be taken to be the basis of his ability to think and act. But if man is to be a lucid transcendental source of meaning, this unthought must be ultimately accessible to thought. And if he is to be autonomous, this unthought must be dominated in action.
there's something not quite right about it. It seems to present a very phenomenological version of Foucault, when he wouldn't have a bar of phenomenology. But it's hard to say without the context.
just googled and saw it was Hubert Dreyfus. That explains it.
did your cryotube open a couple of days early
We are living in the future!
i want to do this sort of stuff instead of essays about what we mean when we say Dave
continental philosophy is where it's at.
i honestly don't think I'm gonna have that option though
or switch courses.
read Nietzsche in your spare time
I got that.
like, am I just supposed to assume that there is objective moral virtues? Why the hell should I do that? Oh right, you're not really gonna explain why. Good. That's great.
What's more annoying is i'll bring this up to my lecturer and he'll look at me like i'm an idiot and say something about the Aztecs.
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??