how do I start with [post]-structuralist/pomo philosophy?
is this handsome bald homo a good starting point?
>>8037390
start with the greeks
>>8037390
dont
>>8037390
assuming you know nothing or very little, read an article on the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy or the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, then pick an author that seems interesting to you, read an article about them then go into reading an actual book from them
>>8037493
why not friend?
>>8037501
some of those articles blow nigger dicks, a lot of secondary materials on wacky pomo shit are just nobody scholars using the opportunity to roleplay as their pomo idol and be just as obtuse
just read like 10 easy books on it, written by anglos, and you'll see how simple it all is. reading post-structuralism "cold" is dumb, literally nobody does it ever, everyone has their hand held for them by professors/For Dummies tier secondary materials/trial and error/all of the above
it also breaks down into two categories once you crack the code:
>really simple, just said in circuitous and ambiguous language because they're french, but at least you can pin them down and go "what did you mean by this" and they go "well, _____ i guess" (foucault)
>fake nonsense garbage, also said in circuitous ambiguous language but instead of pinning them down they go ":^) you'll never figure it out. nope! you didn't guess right! hahaha! perhaps you need to read freud again! haha mon ami are you frustrated!" (lacan, deleuze)
Start with the Analytics and don't look back.
Thank me later.
>>8037520
because clearly you dont have the proper background and dont even know why you want to start with them
>>8037526
>le poststructuralism is nonsense
This is how you separate the wheat from the chaff.
>>8037550
you literally couldn't even perform exegesis on my post so i doubt you read the baldaids
>>8037526
neither the IEP nor the stanford pomo articles are obtuse. they are pretty clear summaries. i recommend you look at the articles on the authors you mention having difficulty understanding, like foucault, lacan, or deleuze. their ideas are laid out in a way you, the OP, or anyone with an undergrad degree in the humanities should be able to understand.
>>8037531
Man, it feels wrong to include Wittgenstein in with the rest of those soulless dweebs.
>>8037645
Its pretty appropriate since the brilliance of his career was solidifying why they shouldn't exist
>>8037390
OP here
would anyone recommend any good anthologies / collections on the matter?
>>8037557
>exegesis
hahahahahha
anyway, just because it wasn't the only viewpoint you presented doesn't mean you didn't present it at all
my post wasn't even an attack on you, so much as a declarative statement. you needn't have felt threatened by it if you didn't subscribe to the view I diminished
>>8037661
Norton Anthology of Critical Theory.
Kant
>>8037390
OP, I would not start by reading Foucault cold. I am also getting started on this topic as well so I began reading pic related. It is extremely clear so far. I have a degree in philosophy, which maybe helps, but I think you'll be fine. Also, I have been reading Norton's anthology on Marx/Engels. I have also previously read several books by Nietzsche who was also pretty important in shaping crit theory, from what I've heard. Finally, I plan to read some Freud as well before digging into Foucault/Derrida/etc.
Sausure's Course in General Linguistics was very influential too.
This is a good lecture series I've been watching as well-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY&list=PLD00D35CBC75941BD
Good luck!
>>8037672
I picked up this as well. It just came in the mail yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to crack into it yet, but you can see from browsing the table of contents online or something that it has a lot of what you'll need to get started (e.g. Barthes' "Death of the Author" & Foucault's "What is an Author?").
If any anons want to weigh in and let me know if I'm on the right track or not, it is appreciated.
>>8037752
thank you anon
>>8037752
>throw on random ass neutral pictures, but make sure there's an old man and a younger man to show that we value old and new ideas equally
>also have the first part of the name in smaller, thinner lighter colours letters then the second part larger bold black letters so people read it like "Beginning... THEORY" and think "whoa it must be important"
Not talking shit about the book just the cover design.
>>8037813
>make sure there's an old man and a younger man to show that we value old and new ideas equally
kek'd
idk if you're shitposting or not but the images are of Jacques Derrida and Judith Butler (a woman), both of whom are discussed in the book.
but yeah it's a really lame cover...
>>8037645
>soulless
They've generated more progress than all >20th century continental obscurantists combined. Philosophy isn't about soul, either. If you want soul, go read some poetry, halfwit.
>>8037659
W isn't taken seriously these days though, so ultimately he was wrong about more things than he was right.
Seriously though, it makes me sad how many years OP might potentially waste reading and trying to understand this blowhard and intellectually bankrupt tradition. As naive and seduced by pomo rhetoric OP is, hopefully he is still relatively young and will soon come to sanity and reconsider his motivation for wanting to know ANYTHING about post-structuralism.
>>8037390
Rule #1 when learning about Foucault: Always read a good book about him before you read his works.
>>8037526
This. Op dun read anything. Pick it up on the go while browsing. This isn't science.
Man, I wish I could be as happy as Foucault looks in OP's picture.
>>8037863
Yikes.
>>8037863
Okay, reddit.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/10/A_Gentle_Introduction_to_Structuralism_Postmodernism_And_All_That
>>8037520
Because it's acres of gibberish peddled by charlatans.
The only pomo you need is a skim through the key texts to learn the words and names and you only need to do that if you're an English major and need to know the passwords.
It's memes for academics.
>>8037390
this pic makes it clear Focault was a black man
>>8038476
ay yo hold up r u sayin we wuz philosophers n shiet?
>>8037390
Deleuze & Guattari
>>8038473
Shut the fuck up once and for all
