does literary/critical theory have any merit?
eh
>hehe le old institutions were better! fuck science and advancement XD
love this meme
>>8006849
Two letter text, translation: next
>>8006858
science has been indoctrinated as an almost authorial institution to be worshipped evangelically nowadays, so he's not wrong.
>>8006858
Looks like *someone* hasn't read Foucault.
>>8006847
Not outside of campus kiddo
>>8006847
Nope.
Sure but you have to take it with a grain of salt. It's cool to know the ideological underpinnings of fuckin' ... GoT or whatever's popular, but theory can be an excuse not to do anything about anything, too.
>>8006847
of course not, why would social/cultural context ever have any value to us when we can just science the fuck out of everything
No merit whatsoever. Honestly, it mostly ruins the aesthetic experience of reading literature. If you think that reading a book through a neo-Feminist, Sedgewickial Cultural Materialist lens will enrich your experience, then you should rethink why you're reading in the first place.
>>8006847
I wanna rub his head.
I think his anxiety of modern society was caused by people judging him for going bald
Sure, as long as you don't use it as reason to dismiss things out-of-hand.
Honestly it works best when used in conjunction with aesthetic enjoyment of literature. Reading in a manner that is one way or the other in its entirety is pretty boring, and at times paralyzing, in my experience.
>>8007292
The problem with sciencing the fuck out of everything is the plethora of methodologies makes everything outside of the realm of chemistry, physics, and biology provable. Population growth = more scientists = more studies = more contradictory messages = studies proving any possible viewpoint = people wielding these like hammers in the public realm willy nilly = radical uncertainty.
>>8007729
me too. and a little tug too.
>>8006847
I thank God every day for creating AIDS because of this faggot.
>>8007242
o shit waddup!
>>8006847
A functionalist critique of literary/critical theory would go in a long way in teaching everyone that the Humanities has devolved into Racketeering.
The REAL bad news, however, is how much it would cost to restart the entire discipline.
>Two decades.
>Extreme political costs to keep it racket-free
>At least a hundred million.
>Can't teach students anymore (because it'll just go back to being a Racket.)
>And it would be far less productive then it used to be, because the Humanities program is much smaller.
Right now, the Humanities belong to fringe auto-didactics who are keeping an ember of the practice alive. But the powers at be are effectively fucked, because the Humanities was supposed to educate the Rich kids. Without a Humanities education, the 'elite' stop being 'elite.'
>What happens when you stop teaching Communications, Sociology, and Linguistics to the rich, and expect them to remain in power.
