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.