Conversation

Replying to
I mean a bunch of humanities academic disciplines spent much of the 20th century writing about this topic. Semiotics, structuralism, and post-structuralism all have useful tools and language here.
2
Replying to
Mostly wikipedia glosses and quotes. French theorist priorities don’t interest me. I’ve read McLuhan though and don’t think he fits in that tradition. One of the luxuries of not being in academia is that reinventing the wheel is fine and mastering the literature is optional.
1
1
Replying to
Yeah secondary sources are great for this stuff. Very underrated in the humanities generally. We don’t expect physics and math students to read Newton’s Principia. No idea why people expect original humanities texts to good access points for those ideas.
1
2
Replying to
You mean because a field of study who’s central principle is the innate value of human beings is inconvenient for the endless dehumanization demanded by the extractive plutocratic capitalist death cult for which engineers have blithely served as hand-maiden? Yeah me too :)
1
Replying to and
Unless we’re trapped in triple irony right now and you were planning on being rude to the people who look at our world and think “You know? I think our problem is too much time spent on the human experience, ethics, aesthetics, and the foundations of how we relate to each other!”
1
Show replies