[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 119 KB, 782x758, 1563703799331.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14513360 No.14513360[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>NOOOHOHOOHO YOU CANT JUST DEFINE POST-STRUCTURALISM, THEREBY MAKING IT OPEN TO CRITICISM

Is the pseudophilosophy known as Post-Structuralism the biggest cope ever created by modern progressive philosophers? Are there any good Philosophers/books that have criticised it? or is Philosophy just dead?

>> No.14513373
File: 191 KB, 680x760, 834.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14513373

Ah yes, I am a postmodernist. Will I ever specify what that means? No.

>> No.14513382

here is what Wikipedia says:

Post-structuralism is either a continuation or a rejection of the intellectual project that preceded it—structuralism.[1] Structuralism proposes that one may understand human culture by means of a structure—modeled on language (structural linguistics)—that differs from concrete reality and from abstract ideas—a "third order" that mediates between the two.[2] Post-structuralist authors all present different critiques of structuralism, but common themes include the rejection of the self-sufficiency of structuralism, and an interrogation of the binary oppositions that constitute its structures.[3][4][5] [6] Writers whose works are often characterised as post-structuralist include: Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Judith Butler, Jean Baudrillard, Julia Kristeva, and Jürgen Habermas[citation needed], although many theorists who have been called "post-structuralist" have rejected the label.

So it is a bunch of different critiques of the structuralists who set up a sort of tripartite system where the 'structure' mediates between reality and our ideas. I'm sure they all disagree about how to define basically every term involved here, which is maybe where your confusion comes from.

>> No.14513383

>NOOOOO IT DOSENT MEAN THAT THERE ARE INFINITELY MANY WAYS OF INTERPRETING THE WORLD, IT MEANS THAT POST STRUCTURALISM IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY OF INTERPRETING THE WORLD
>NOOOOOO THATS NOT A PARADOX. Y-Y-YOURE J-JUST A FATHERLESS JORDAN PETERSON FANBOY

>> No.14513395

>>14513382
I think thats the point though, that anyone can critique structuralism from so many different subjective angles that its impossible for Post Structuralism to be a coherent philosophical system, its self contradictory

>> No.14514439

post structuralites are a cope

>> No.14514450

>>14513395
>coherent system
bruh

>> No.14514485

>>14514450
>Not believing in coherent systems is the only true coherent system
thats why post-structuralism fails

>> No.14514491
File: 295 KB, 1511x1441, 1578588030012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14514491

>>14513360

>> No.14514506

>>14514485
the systems all contradict one another and are the products of their time

>> No.14514512

>>14514485
actually, not believing in coherent systems is the only right school of thought, yes
and no, I don't subscribe to poststructural thought

>> No.14514523

>post-structuralism

name one area of day to day life where this pseudo intellectual bullshit will help you

>> No.14514525

>>14514506
Including Post-structuralism.
Hegel win every time

>> No.14514539

>>14514525
you haven't shown how the refusal of systems is itself somehow a system

>> No.14514574

>>14514539
Systems being wrong and/or contradictory dosen't mean they arent useful. Post-Structuralism on the other hand isnt useful and is detrimental to functioning society. Even a Marxist or Anarcho Communist society has Structure. Post-Structuralism is just a Negative Philosophy that dosen't actually contribute to the improvement of society in any way, by its nature, it is impossible for post-structuralists to agree on anything except that all structures are bad.

Imagine you had a post-structuralist revolution into some sort of Egoist-Anarchist-Marxist society or whatever Deleuze is thinking of. What would stop people from restructuring societal "norms"? The only way would be to reimpose a superficial "Structure" on society that stops all other structures from forming.

>> No.14514759

I swear this board has a cumulative IQ of 60. This entire thread is people arguing against some high-level abstraction of what they think post-structuralism is. Pick up a fucking book you absolute cavemen and stop the intellectual dick measuring contest.

>>14513360
Habermas purportedly has a modernist-esque critique of it. He seems to address some central claims from specific poststuct authors' by way of pointing out logical paradoxes that arise in their respective works. I haven't read it but it takes you .5 seconds to look it up if you're actually interested.

>> No.14514786
File: 91 KB, 822x1024, 2e6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14514786

Also, take the Lobsterpill

>> No.14514801
File: 21 KB, 303x499, 41XH1xYn9dL._SX301_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14514801

If you haven't read this you don't deserve to speak. Its like 150 pages, get to it.

>> No.14514946
File: 2.82 MB, 1403x1400, cover.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14514946

What a plebtier community. Post-structuralism is the only philosophy I've ever really studied with interest. Is it really that tough?

Here's an explanation even you simpletons should understand. Temperature is usually defined on a scale from hot to cold. But what if you were life that never knew a difference in temperature? Maybe you live on a neutron star or beneath the ice on a far away moon where the temperature is a non factor. Now imagine your species is introduced to heat for the first time in it's existence. While humans innately know the spectrum and STRUCTURE of temperature this new species has no point of reference for such a thing. To understand how this creature would look at something as drastic as temperature when it's never known it before we need to move PAST our common ideas on the STRUCTURE of temperature. Thereby we become POST-STRUCTURALISTS. Wasn't that easy?

>> No.14514955

>>14514574
>not the little societinos

>> No.14515069

>>14514946
no because you're still a human operating under human imperatives and shouldn't give a fuck what some faggot alien thinks about temperature.
this is nothing nietzsche didn't cover anyway and is totally redundant rehashing of his most boring aspects ad nauseam.

>> No.14515092

>>14514574
>Post-Structuralism on the other hand isnt useful and is detrimental to functioning society.
As for usefulness - it's just an another in an endless line of "useless" ideas that intellectuals have been producing since ancient Greece. Thales saying that everything is made of water is no more useful than Derrida explaining how writing is not subordinated to speech. If usefulness is everything to you, you should stick to /g/ and /sci/.
As for being detrimental, post-struc writing is unreadable to 99% of human population, so you're really comically overrating its power.
> post-structuralist revolution
This makes sense about as much as saying "nihilistic God" or something. Complaining about a contradiction that you made up entirely inside your head.

>> No.14515150

>>14515069
If you didn’t already know post structuralists were plagiarizing nietzsche and Stirner then I feel bad. They’re not really original thinkers

>> No.14515164

>>14515150
no i had no idea, never read a single fucking book

>> No.14515172

>>14515069
It's like you've never even considered post-humanism. Whatcha gonna think when you can swap bodies for a couple hundred bucks?

>> No.14515184

>>14515172
not do that because i'm not a retarded faggot like you

>> No.14515197

>>14515184
Society will leave you behind as Neo Sapiens become the dominant species and all the culture you once knew is superceded.

>> No.14515210
File: 1.74 MB, 1920x1080, 1549926001357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14515210

>>14515197
post structuralist perspectivism is really gonna help me then huh?

>> No.14515254

>>14515172
>when you can swap bodies
Oh, so you believe in some material soul-consciousness-substance residing in the body that can be moved. Dear Derrida, this is so passé.
Transhumacucks confirmed for XVIII century Protestant Millenarianism
repackaged, replete with Digital Rapture and shiet. Dear, oh just how much the Americans are oblivious of themselves.

>> No.14515385
File: 153 KB, 677x658, 1578517337960.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14515385

>>14513360