Foucault

>because user said so, not because any info exists to back up this hypothesis

I did one humanities type module and that was the first thing the lecturer showed. He said that the nature of post-modernism is self-reflective, like the ourobos eating itself - so by defining some kind of "Post-modern mechanism" you actually allow that definition to be susceptible to the same critique as what it was critiquing. I dont do it justice but there is this kind of fractal nature to it all that reminded me a lot of the book "Godel, Escher, Bach"

Yeah, it's like how Derrida says in "Of Grammatology'"you can deconstruct a text to mean the opposite of what it is saying, but then you privileging that reading gets you back in the same spot, so it is a continual "dance" between the possible binary interpretations that is constantly going on.

In other words, it is fucking non-sense bullshit and anyone who tries to pass this off as serious thought needs a bullet in the head.

Derrida was just taking valid points made by people like Wittgenstein and Saussure to extremes. And he isnt the foundation of post-modernism, in fact most of the authors are pretty different to each other. Maybe look at Debord and Jameson for more sensible theories.

I think one reason most of post-modernism and the humanities in general are surrounded in a cloud of bullshit is that jargon has to get used as a type of signaling mechanism for competition for jobs and tenure. You don't see it as much in the hard sciences because you are dealing with proofs that can be replicated; to get a job as an English professor, you have to show you've done the requisite reading by spouting-off esoteric terminology and name-dropping obscure authors, even though knowing these things isn't necessarily indicative of quality and most of these ideas can be explained by an 8th grader in two sentences.

What distinguishes "Post Modernism" from simply "making shit up?"

See and pic related

Attached: PoMo.jpg (681x603, 107K)

I don't get it. If it's so simple that it can be explained in terms an 8th grader can understand, why does nobody ever do just that?

Attached: 1536010996755.png (656x755, 42K)

>normies equate use of big words with being intelligent
Self-important people trying to pass themselves off as intelligent to people even stupider than them, or simply naive and young, use arcane terminology in order to give the appearance of brilliance. Muddying the waters so you cannot see how shallow or stupid they are.

because guys like foucault and derrida were obscurantists who made their work sound more profound than it actually was and 115 post-grads can't help but get led down the garden path of treating their work like holy texts to decipher

*115 IQ

He was right about our institutions being kike masturbation facilities. The rest is meh.

The pendulum proves ball earth.

>transformative change

>implying Foucault was ever wrong

Bullshit and jargon are just language games for those who tire of traditional puzzles. Some enjoy the challenge.

Attached: fuck-all.jpg (500x373, 32K)

FPBP

Attached: 1539007644772.gif (399x399, 29K)

This, so much.

Foucault was an AIDS-ridden faggot who wrote a lot of post-modern garbage on power relationships based largely on his freaky sado-masochistic sexual habits at bath houses.

>safe and inclusive comedy night
How funny is it?

He want legalize lolis.

Sexual Morality and the Law is the transcription of a 1978 radio conversation in Paris between philosopher Michel Foucault, playwright/actor/lawyer Jean Danet, and novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem, debating the idea of abolishing age of consent laws in France.

In 1977, the issue was brought to public attention in France by a petition against age of consent laws addressed to the Parliament, defending the decriminalization of all consented sexual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen (the age of consent in France).[1] Foucault stated that the petition was signed by several philosophers including himself, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, pediatrician and psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto, and also by people he described as belonging to a wide range of political positions.[1]

The dialogue was broadcast on April 4, 1978 by radio France Culture

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law

> post-modern garbage on power relationships
Are there any non-cucked writings on power relationships? It is important in this shithole full of psychopaths.

For autistic NEETS Foucault would actually be one of the best. He talks about mental illness as a way to exert power on outcasts.

According to Foucault, If one examines semantic situationism, one is faced with a choice: either accept neoconstructivist textual theory or conclude that the goal of the artist is significant form, given that language is equal to culture. Sontag suggests the use of postpatriarchial capitalist theory to read and modify sexual identity. However, the subject is interpolated into a precultural paradigm of discourse that includes sexuality as a paradox.

The main theme of the works of Foucault is a semantic whole. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a socialist realism that includes consciousness as a totality: semantic situationism holds that academe is dead. Therefore, the subject is interpolated into a postdialectic constructivist theory that includes language as a whole.