J, you did a degree in english/literature, right? At the risk of sounding somewhat elitist, a lot of the "post structuralism" tought in that field is utterly bastardized and watered down from what the writers originally meant. I once did an elective course on semiotic theory and I wanted to kill myself. I think I did one or two sessions before I left. I mean, it's understandable, right, people in that field didn't care about the nuances of some guy making a nuance argument against 2500 years of metaphysical tradition, they're not philosophers, they want the cool shit, everything's text, the author is dead, everything's relative yada yada. None of the frenchies every really went the whole "everything's relative, man", even Derrida but that's what's commonly parroted. But without those philosophical nuances those arguments become banal and fall apart and that's why post structuralism in fields like literature and film has often become a farce. I once heard some professor of media science or some shit have a talk about some random ass video and she was constantly referencing Deleuze and I just wanted to strangle her. I also study history and I heard and read my share fair of entirely unreflected, genuine nonsense post structuralism.
Yes, critizing a meta narrative when talking about poststructuralism is a bit funny but I honestly think generalizing such a wide range of authors to say that they are nonsense is a bit too much since they are all so different.
And no, I didn't think you were into analytic philosophy, I just wanted to show that if anything, your criticisms hit all of modern philosophy.
They are theory discussion groups on Facebook. Some of them even have thousands of members, although the level of discussion varies. Honestly, a lot of people there aren't even students or teachers, a lot of academics seem to avoid the internet for discussion for obvious reasons.
June 2018 mix