Lmao just be happy anybody at all is interested in your navel gazing bullshit.
I tried to read some Deleuze but couldn't get past the first few pages it felt like reading complete gibberish, why do they have to write like that? Are there really no easier ways to express the same ideas?
Most of that school seems like complete gibberish to me, and I have a PhD in philosophy. There are definitely easier ways to express their ideas. It's not just you.
That's a little more broad than I intended. I'm not a big fan of the continentals, but I don't think they're all gibberish--Kant is difficult (and I disagree with much of what he says), but I don't think the Critiques are gibberish. I was more referring to the Deluze-Guatarri-Derrida-Baudrillard axis of (mostly) French post-structuralist and post-structuralist-adjacent stuff. I find it almost entirely incomprehensible to read, and even when the points are explained to me by someone who really knows their stuff, they rarely seem all that deep or profound. There are some exceptions here and there, but in general I find that tradition to be an awful lot of light with very little heat.
well, imo any of the continentals, even the more obscuritarian ones, are a lot more valuable than anything analytic philosophy has to offer. (Valuable here means valuable to revolutionary politics) Im not a big fan of the post-structuralists either, but I think they do at least offer a meaningful perspective. On the other hand, what does analytic philosophy have to offer? Chomsky? His critique was basically just "I can't understand your writings and you are just trying to sound smart." I really don't know why people take that guy seriously at all...
Oh, 100%. There's virtually no serious engagement with revolutionary politics in the mainstream analytic tradition. Most professional philosophy across the board is just garbage, and I say that as a professional philosopher. I mostly do fairly niche foundation of climate science and complexity stuff, though, so I have little contact with either mainstream analytic or continental stuff. I was going to say that my professional work is basically separate from my political engagement, but that's not exactly true: I radicalized in large part because of my work on climate science.
Lmao just be happy anybody at all is interested in your navel gazing bullshit.
I tried to read some Deleuze but couldn't get past the first few pages it felt like reading complete gibberish, why do they have to write like that? Are there really no easier ways to express the same ideas?
Most of that school seems like complete gibberish to me, and I have a PhD in philosophy. There are definitely easier ways to express their ideas. It's not just you.
what do you mean by "that school"? continental philosophy?
That's a little more broad than I intended. I'm not a big fan of the continentals, but I don't think they're all gibberish--Kant is difficult (and I disagree with much of what he says), but I don't think the Critiques are gibberish. I was more referring to the Deluze-Guatarri-Derrida-Baudrillard axis of (mostly) French post-structuralist and post-structuralist-adjacent stuff. I find it almost entirely incomprehensible to read, and even when the points are explained to me by someone who really knows their stuff, they rarely seem all that deep or profound. There are some exceptions here and there, but in general I find that tradition to be an awful lot of light with very little heat.
well, imo any of the continentals, even the more obscuritarian ones, are a lot more valuable than anything analytic philosophy has to offer. (Valuable here means valuable to revolutionary politics) Im not a big fan of the post-structuralists either, but I think they do at least offer a meaningful perspective. On the other hand, what does analytic philosophy have to offer? Chomsky? His critique was basically just "I can't understand your writings and you are just trying to sound smart." I really don't know why people take that guy seriously at all...
Oh, 100%. There's virtually no serious engagement with revolutionary politics in the mainstream analytic tradition. Most professional philosophy across the board is just garbage, and I say that as a professional philosopher. I mostly do fairly niche foundation of climate science and complexity stuff, though, so I have little contact with either mainstream analytic or continental stuff. I was going to say that my professional work is basically separate from my political engagement, but that's not exactly true: I radicalized in large part because of my work on climate science.