If their intellectual content was close to nil, does that mean that it's close to impossible to disagree with it (since there's almost nothing there to disagree with)?
I read literally all of the books by Derrida and Foucault in college. I thought their style was cool, and could easily get an A+ on every term paper by emulating their rhetorical tricks, but realized their intellectual content was close to nil. Glad Pinker spared himself.
-
-
-
That's the beauty of their writing. Criticizing it is like Caligula trying to attack the sea with roman cavalry. There's just nothing substantive enough to hit.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Same here. And Lacan and Deleuze, and, and... Found Foucault's ideas on punishment, imprisonment and surveillance rather interesting. Some of Derrida's ideas on language are not devoid of interest, especially when you consider that he just turned Saussure upside-down for 1/
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
not because he had any disagreement with him but for the hell of it, by his own admission. Deleuze... I dunno. Couldn't make anything of it. But the man did have a sense of humour, so I'm still wondering if he wasn't some dadaist prankster, an Andy Kauffman of philosophy...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.