1.26.2007
In this final semester of my final year, the philosophy and politics courses are weighted toward the recent developments in philosophy etc. Which translates into lots of Derrida, Foucault, Ricouer and "radical" philosophy generally.
I have only been reading it for a week and I wonder (not originally I'm sure) why, for a philosophy of mass emancipation from power and life as a subject, it is so bloody impenetrable to the folk supposed to benefit from its very existence.
I realise that the ideas themselves are never easy as such and their power is in their popularisation by others. I am quite interested in some of these ideas and up for the read, but as a recent review of the Verso series of "Radical Philosophy" suggested, between Jargon and possible western-centric outlook it borders on inaccessible and irrelevant.
Which is a pity.
Labels: Radical Ricouer Derrida Foucault Jargon
I think Derrida and Foucault are interesting in so far as they expand on certain concepts of 'discourse', but yes, it is jargon heavy, close to solipsistic and in many respects there is more than a hint of elitism about their positioning of themselves as interpreters of meaning...
...on the other hand it's crucial to engage with it, even if one disagrees with the ideas behind it if only to understand a part of the trajectory of our culture over the past two or three decades.
I absolutely agree, the recent past is indelibly marked by their work. Your point about meaning is perhaps a better way of my own regarding the seeming tension between radical interpretations and perspectives and their failure to radicalise those who require emancipation.
All of the above have undoubted moments of brilliance, yet they couch it within a great deal of jargon laden philosophy.
I struggle to see how postmodernism gets such credit for the fall of entire cultures (or other awful claims it gets). It is at heart (to my mind at least) that most modern of elements-the anti-thesis.
perhaps I am wrong.
I realise it is simplistic but it is not a system of beliefs (anathema to the idea in fact) rather a system of critical reflection and interpretation of what it is that has taken place. It doesnt disclose through its presence a great deal, it simply acts to subvert, critique and perfect what precedes and co exists with it as well as exploring new ways to generate ideas.
Did you ever read the Alan Sokal book, Intellectual Impostures? It's a bit harsh on much post-modernism, but there's a grain of truth in there.
you sound like a man in the know. where can I find english translations of Jules Lequier, Georges Palante or/and Louis Guilloux (black blood). My french is not so passable!
thank you (especially if you can help!
Hi cian, thats a good blog you have going, i recently set up my own.
I have started to think that Foucoult is useless for argumentation, the tedious Constructivists that hang around everywhere, it seems like there is always one hanging around every conversation. All he ever wanted was to be a goldfish. spoofer.
Hi Cian,
I'd have to form an opinion first. No sense pretending :)
I agree with what you say. As a man of the IT world, I have a trade steeped to the eyebrows in jargon. It's pretty damn lonely.
Philosophy would do well to be a bit more user-friendly!
Its nearly 20 years since I did Philosophy and English in UCD. Don't tell me they are still peddling the same rubbish. I despair for you. I struggled through it as well: Foucault, Ricouer, Derrida, et al. Got excited about it for a little while. Then I got on with my life. I recently met some tosser who told me he was a "post-christian" and thought Derrida was the best argument to be born again. Yes, he was American. Personally, I think the whole Post-modern shlock is just jargon ridden Nostradamus. People will be getting worked up over that sophistry for years. I did like the Anglo-American stuff: especially Wittgenstein. Much more rigorous. If I were young and back again I would go and learn something real: like welding or carpentry. I would probably be wealthier now if I had.
This post has been removed by the author.
9.
Foucalt and Derrida are worth slogging your way through, if only to move on to Baudrillard, Guattari, Debord and especially Andre Gorz.
French contemporary philosophers seem to rejoice in impenetrable language, they take a simple enough concept and wrap it up in shiny Christmas paper to show how clever they are, but if you can tear through that wrapping it really can be worth it. Chomsky has a great "pot calling the kettle black" quote on French philosophers using big words unnecessarily:
"Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count. True, there are lots of other things I don't understand: the articles in the current issues of math and physics journals, for example. But there is a difference. In the latter case, I know how to get to understand them, and have done so, in cases of particular interest to me; and I also know that people in these fields can explain the contents to me at my level, so that I can gain what (partial) understanding I may want. In contrast, no one seems to be able to explain to me why the latest post-this-and-that is (for the most part) other than truism, error, or gibberish, and I do not know how to proceed. Perhaps the explanation lies in some personal inadequacy, like tone-deafness. Or there may be other reasons."
Leave your response