This guy completely BTFO the "Dark Enlightenment" before it was even a thing
Then chumpsky BTFO of him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfNl2L0Gf8
>>40024
He still belongs more on /lit/ than /his/.
>>40060
We'll let the mods decide
>>40011
this times a thousand
Foucault's scholarship is cringeworthy
>>39942
>post modernists
>BTFOing anyone ever
He and Derrida can go in the trash bin with the rest of the Sophists.
>>40168
If you don't think empirical evidence (or as close as you can get to it) is important when doing historical research then you aren't doing history. Foucalt was not doing history. He would take anecdotes and extrapolate them into theories to explain the past that conformed to his own world view. Foucalt was no more of a historian than Freud was. Both were more interested in psychology than historical reality.
>>40320
>implying the relativism of postmodernism in historical context isn't the same as Sophism
>implying YOU know what post modernism is
You can go in the trash bin as well.
>>40379
What's your problem with relativism? If you can adequately refute it, please go ahead, because then you'd be moving the discipline into a literally a new epoch
>>40447
It's been refuted before, but you can start with Evan's book In Defense of History if you desire. It's pretty short, a little antiquated, and fairly simple (mostly due to the scope of the book), but it tackles the majors arguments for post-modernist theory. However, the reality of the situation at this point in time is we're approaching hyper-relativism and any semblance of truth is thrown away in favor of theory. Rankean historiography has been dead for ages, but the new direction is far worse than anything that came before Ranke, imho. The only real reason post-modernist theory continues to subsist is due to progressive views and a feeling of necessary enfranchisement of groups who played little to no role in history despite the claims of their advocates. In turn, this is disenfranchising any group who desires to shy away from this hyper-relative hogwash and prefers to keep with a narrative historiography backed by source documentation.
>>40610
This is a pretty good comment. It's pretty sad that historical sources and evidence are now seen as less important than the argument being made. Even worse is the people who claim that primary sources themselves are biased and worthless because the people who wrote them were racist and sexist by our modern standards. Fuck facts, the only thing that matters is the evidence that conforms to my worldview.
>>40706
There are some American and British professors that advocate for a more Rankean historiography, but they're a dying breed. However, unless you're a French social historian, you're probably going to be immersed solely in post-modernist theory. I'm honestly so disappointed in the direction that the historical field is moving I'm going into archival work instead if only for the reason I will never find a job otherwise. It's practically suicidal for a non-post-modernist to go into academia in the States these days.
>>40011
His archeological method was based tho. He basically shows the change of a concept through the difference in how the discourse of that concept developed over time.
What the hell is the 'Dark Enlightenment'? Sounds like the title of an edgy villainous organization in a subpar fantasy series.
>>41398
That's basically what it is, it's a term Ess Jay Dubyas use to describe anyone they disagree with (single white heterosexual males).
Did he? I always thought that Foucault was very useful for the reactionary right, if only to attack the assumptions of dominant liberalism.
>>39942
fugg Dark Enlightenment is gonna get memed hard on this board isn't it?
