I feel dumb reading The Order Of Things.
I know it makes sense but I also know French philosophers of the 60s wrote it in a difficult way.
Why were they such jerks? Shouldn't philosophy be as simple as possible?
they're a bunch of resentful obscurantists. don't waste your time
>>8023150
>his iq is sub 120
>>8022383
It's worth it, though if it's your first "serious" read, it's gonna be tough. I really don't think philosophy is supposed to be as simple as possible, what made you think so?
>>8022383
it's the equivalent of trying to find meaning in those modern paintings of blue lines
mean what you say, say what you mean. when you obfuscate your ideas it's clear that you never had much to say in the first place.
>>8022383
>I know it makes sense
How do you know that? Are you aware that Foucault was a charlatan who conned weak people into reading acres of gibberish?
>>8023170
I think what OP meant (and I can't say I totally disagree) is that since reading/writing philosophy is the exchange of really complex and abstract concepts, it would make sense to explainthd concepts in as sraight forward a way as possible so they can be shared effectively. A lot of philosophers seem too busy describing everything in such a vague and esoteric way that they fail to effectively communicate their ideas
>>8023207
>A lot of philosophers seem too busy describing everything in such a vague and esoteric way that they fail to effectively communicate their ideas
It's just a different approach. Why are you guys so uncomfortable in it? Figure out what they're trying to say instead of kvetching about how they lack content.
>>8023170
>I really don't think philosophy is supposed to be as simple as possible, what made you think so?
The pillow talks with your mom.
>>8023207
>I think what OP meant (and I can't say I totally disagree) is that since reading/writing philosophy is the exchange of really complex and abstract concepts, it would make sense to explainthd concepts in as sraight forward a way as possible so they can be shared effectively.
It would only "make sense" to do that if the author had any ideas to share in the first place. People like Foucault write in a convoluted style to hide the fact that they have nothing nontrivial to communicate.
>A lot of philosophers seem too busy describing everything in such a vague and esoteric way that they fail to effectively communicate their ideas
No, philosophers don't do that. Only pseudo-intellectual con artists do that. Learn to tell the difference.
>>8023153
Plato, Jesus, Buddha never had to hide what they meant. Were they sub 120, too?
>>8023217
Why should it be MY job to decipher this french faggot's code when 99% chance it's gonna be some resentful, anti-life bullshit about how gays are secretly better than straights or blacks are secretly better than whites or, ultimately, how death is secretly better than life
>>8023207
I'm the person you're answering to.
I can hear what you say, though philosophy is (also) about people responding to people responding to people, etc. You cannot escape the need to know writers who precedes another one, and contexts of emergence of such or such question. A question doesn't come alone, nor does it come at any time. A philosopher is already in a discussion with a lot of others, trying to put it in a nutshell would be the equivalent of summarize 2500 years of philosophy. Sadly, that's kind of a hard thing to do.
There is always the possibility of popularisation, that may be a good entrance to these kind of things but it doesn't replace the original.
>>8023225
We both know you never read Foucault.
>>8023268
Foucault is not a philosopher, and has nothing to do with philosophy.
>>8023295
the first clause is mostly true, the second clause is false, and you knew this as you wrote what you wrote.
>>8023385
don't try to argue with analytic friends
>>8023217
Agreed. Why should the same complaints about style apply to Foucault and Derrida? With Derrida, it makes sense that casual readers might mistake attempts to write under erasure for obscurantism.
With Foucault, though, that charge is even less relevant. More than anything, his writing makes every effort to keep its objects of analysis anonymous. Actually, that's how he describes archaeology as a method. Its stylistic problem is redundancy, not obscurity or esotericism.
This redundancy is necessary for Foucault's project, which is not about opinions held by and exchanged between subjects, but rather about the conditions under which it becomes possible to represent beings.
So when I read something like >>8023225 it becomes obvious to me that the accusation always ricochets. People accuse Foucault of using a "convoluted style" to hide the superficiality of his thought. But all that means is that they haven't read Foucault, or at least haven't followed his methodological claims closely enough to understand how he proposes to manage the "contents" of his argument.
One place to look in The Order of Things for a particularly compressed example of Foucault's habits of formal analysis is in the "Las Meninas" chapter. Attached to this post is a diagram I made a while ago to try to capture how Foucault's analysis divides up the surface of the painting.
>>8023419
>don't try to argue with analytic friends
This, analytics are too dumb to step outside their formal system and stop clingind to dubious inference rules.
>>8023695
This has to be a joke.
>>8023258
>MY job
ooh sorry you big baby maybe you shouldn't read books because it isn't YOUR job to read maybe go watch TV maybe watch some anime?
>>8022383
>Shouldn't philosophy be as simple as possible?
Tell that to Hegel
why oh why would you read the order of things as your first foucault let alone your first ps philosophy
>>8023736
it is
>>8023752
he actually did believe though, he was against making assumptions
>>8023761
It's hard to tell with continental tards. Poe's law and all.
>>8023732
>dubious inference rules
, he typed on his computer.
>>8023170
>I really don't think philosophy is supposed to be as simple as possible
Then you're an idiot.
It's possible that you shouldn't necessarily convey your ideas as simply as possible, but you should definitely convey them as clearly as possible (which might come into conflict with simple simplicity).
>>8023743
Ok, I won't. Pretty soon, nobody else will either. The only people who have enough time to waste hours sloughing through that pretentious french pigshit probably don't reproduce above replacement rate (if at all) and will be cleared out of the gene pool soon enough, thank god.
>>8022383
Is that your first Foucault? It's a terrible starting point, and you're probably more interested in his genealogical period as most people, which means you should read Discipline & Punish and upward.
Foucault is full of shit in the most crucial aspects of his argument in OT, but it's a fascinating read. Although he amusingly attacks those who deemed his work to be structuralist, the ideas and selbstbewegung from structuralism is so extreme, it's quite ridiculous and it completely undermines his argument, it's untenable.
Nevertheless gave the book 5 stars.
>>8023258
this post made me crack up desu
>>8023252
>plato never had to hide what he meant
"none of my philosophy is contained in the dialogues" - plato
>>8023252
Plato wrote dialogues, the point of the form being to engage the reader to think in a way as if they were part of the debate, with the text itself lacking in didacticism.
Jesus taught in parables. The whole point of a parable is for it to be a struggle to understand. To require effort and insightful thought. Jesus did not just tell anyone anything simply.
Buddha did not write anything.
>>8022383
>I know it makes sense
hahahahhahahahahahahahahahha
>>8023217
>It's just a different approach.
No, it's not "just different", it's shit.
>>8023838
Thanks for the idiot part, though I still don't agree with you. I may totally appreciate the effort of an author to be clear and love it, just like you. But it's not always possible, or desirable.
I tried to explain myself better in >>8023268 relating the point of discussion along the times in philosophy. But what I had especially in mind was polysemy (which is not "saying anything that comes to mind", that would be misreading or talking rubbish). A hypothetical crystal clear philosophical text (I'm not sure that exists) would have no polysemy, simply delivering one and only one meaning, no re-reading value at all : thus being only communication at its poorest level when it comes to philosophy. As for the person thinking Plato is crystal clear, that's simple misreading or reading only one stratum of his work. There are a lot of stratums and meanings which are not obvious (hence the thousands years of discussion along his lines).
So my point is not saying that one have to be deliberately obtuse or uniquely occultist when writing his/her work (is it your point too?). Simply, when the talk becomes interesting, it will also gain complexity and this kind of reading difficulty happens. That doesn't mean there aren't authors doing it deliberately out of pure elitism or bad writing style, but that's rather rare (Leo Strauss did it deliberately quite in an elitist way (to say it badly), in sociology Bourdieu claimed a necessity to precise his vocabulary, rendering it hard to read).
There is also a social and cultural component, people write for and from a given population, most of the time intellectual bourgeoisie. When you don't come from these frames of population, you have few choices but to re-learn a language. By example, speaking of Foucault, when it's your first "hard" read ever, it's gonna be tough times. Though if you come with heavier luggages he becomes very much clearer (doesn't mean limpid), and very pleasant to read. It's a sad aspect but I think there is nothing one can do about this.
All in all this kind of "esoterism" is also a part of philosophy, and a huge one since it's what enriches texts. I'm calling to your personal experience, I believe the texts that made a great impression on you weren't the ones that were crystal clear or truisms.
>>8022383
I found Order of Things pretty much incomprehensible not because of the writing style but because it constantly made reference to stuff from early modern French intellectual history without explaining it. It assumes a whole lot of prior knowledge.
>>8022383
>I know it makes sense
>>8024026
>Just you wait!
>>8022383
There's the anecdote that Searle was told by Foucault that in France, you need some 10-20% of your thought to be incomprehensible gibberish for it to be considered profound.
I'm only familiar with Debord and Baudrillard, but it doesn't seem too far-fetched.
>>8025773
Searle is great. Ornery in the best way.
Is mr fokel the new /lit/ meme?
>>8025773
Reminds me of Nietzsche's quip that one of the main distinctions between a good writer and a great writer was that the greats knew how to use mediocrity effectively.
>>8026157
>greats knew how to use mediocrity effectively.
What does that even mean? Like describing a character waking up? Or describing the sun in a way that hasn't been done before?
The point of philosophy is to record your truth to the best of your ability. Because truth is so subjective and our own thoughts are so specialized and rambling good philosophy will always be mostly incomprehensible.
>>8023258
wouldn't you know it that's exactly what foucault is
he's an endless black hole of apathy and nihilism and hates everything
>>8022383
It's not supposed to tell you anything, it's supposed to create a vocabulary that's nonsense to anyone outside of your in-group. Babbling about differance and the precession of simulacra marks you as a member of the in-group.
It's memes for academics.
>>8023217
What we're getting at is that they're not trying to say anything and the obscurantism is how they kept you from noticing.
>>8023258
It's a privilege to understand great thinkers like Fookoh and other postmodernists. Some people aren't meant to learn these fundamental truths about the universe. Degenerates like mathematicians and physicists don't understand this sentiment, and so they use simple and intelligible phrases to express complex ideas. Can you believe these people? What state would philosophy be in if we decided to stoop to the level of these mouthbreathing ingrates?
>>8022383
Philosophy is an act, not simply a series of fact-like utterances for your purely conscious assessment. Part of the act of philosophy consists in creating and developing an interpretive schematism during the course of reading a complicated piece of philosophical writing.
In other words, the words on the page give you the space to develop what is your own relationship to Foucault's work since it allows for the proliferation of equally valid interpretations.
Until you get that you won't get French philosophy, particularly the post-existentialists and poststructuralists.
>>8026279
Whoa, I'm on your side buddy. We gotta keep the plebeians from understanding the greats. It is our duty as Intellectuals.
>>8026188
You have no idea what philosophy is.
>>8026279
>What are you doing on a literature board?
What are YOU doing on a literature board? You are clearly an illiterate moron.
>>8026271
What a load of horseshit.
>>8026279
>boo hoo people disagree with me
If you want you opinions echoed back at you, maybe ask Tay to repeat one of your insightful tweets.
>>8026262
Look at this convoluted nonsense. It's obviously just complicated to distract you from its emptiness! How can this mean anything if I don't understand it? It must just be there to confuse and deter outsiders. Fucking elitist gatekeeping
>>8026367
>being this mad
>>8026404
>being this happy
>>8026367
Do you have a more accurate system than QFT -- one that does not use mathematics in any way -- that you'd like to share with us?
>>8026173
It means including a healthy amount of filler to separate your good ideas so people don't gloss over the good stuff when they're reading through your work.
Nietzsche does it kind of like this, he has major aphorisms dedicated to questions of metaphysics and epistemology separated by dozens of more minor ones that focus on cultural criticism. Kauffman bitches about this in his commentaries on Nietzsche, that Zarathustra is sometimes like pulling gems from the mud. Some people say he wrote like this because he was socially isolated and needed an outlet for his banal observations at times.
But Nietzsche wrote this way intentionally.
>>8026498
that mule (?) has some cute ears
>>8026498
I wonder if he fucked that mule, or was fucked by it.
Never know with Foucault.
>>8026529
sure. here you go
>>8026573
its your imagination that sparks the idea
>>8026561
I really hope that people won't say the same thing about Zizek one day.
>>8026633
Zizek is 100% filler.
>>8022383
>Why were they such jerks?
You're angry cos you don't understand the, that's not their fault.
>Shouldn't philosophy be as simple as possible?
No.
>>8026561
Debord didn't have to do that. All nonfiction should be written 95 Theses style.
Most fiction should too.
>>8022383
It's not philosophy, it's intellectual history, specifically history of the human sciences.
>>8023171
oh yeah, them modern paintings of blue lines
>>8022383
Why is it suppose to be simple? The way you write influences the reader a certain way. You can write simply and it will have a certain effect and you can write in a complicated way and it will have a different effect.
If you stop treating philosophy as some sort of chase after ab objective truth than the idea of being "coherent" or presenting a system in a simple coherent way becomes unimportant.
Especially when you are trying to go against systematization and structuralism and dichotomies.
>>8023695
lmao that picture is bollocks, and if Focoo really wrote all that dribble then he should not be read by anyone.
>>8023207
But do you not think that part of understanding said ideas is in the interpretation of a complex presentation...
Like the comparison that was made with platonic dialogues..
He write it to supposedly put the reader within the conversation...He used a certain presentation to create a certain effect. To teach by letting you gain experience in proper dialogue through the text.
>>8025418
>A hypothetical crystal clear philosophical text (I'm not sure that exists) would have no polysemy, simply delivering one and only one meaning, no re-reading value at all : thus being only communication at its poorest level when it comes to philosophy. As for the person thinking Plato is crystal clear, that's simple misreading or reading only one stratum of his work. There are a lot of stratums and meanings which are not obvious (hence the thousands years of discussion along his
this is what the jews say about their torah
>>8028980
Of course, hermeneutic (to say it bluntly) applies to a lot of things, and is also a huge part in Jewish philosophy. What's your point?
>>8023258
>>8026197
officially spooked
>>8023170
Foucault admitted to making his work purposefully vague and/or obscure to appease the French academia.
He said something like "15% must be impossible to understand for them to accept it as art".
>>8030631
>using some quote that might as well have been a joke to prove some point about french philosophers being charlatans.
Just go die.
>>8030666
>Disregarding a quote and calling it a joke because it says something you don't want to hear about bald alphabet soup nutbars
>>8030631
Anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes
And all the while, Foucault is still intelligible if you put some effort
Can we, at last, change the subject, or is this board now solely dedicated to "all of this is non-sense and that's why I'll never read it"?
>>8030704
I dont even understand why you would read anything and say its nonesense.
If its interesting you might as well accept it as a possibility and gie it the benfit of the doubt.
>>8030666
Bringing up that quote was clearly meant to get him off lightly on charges of obscurantism - you drooling simpleton. The goal was to make the jury feel that maybe, underneath it all, he was actually a smart guy who had to add in a bit of nonsense to appease his peers.
If, on the other hand, the quote is fake, then there are no such mitigating factors, and Foucault is sentenced to death for unbridled gibberish-mongering.
>>8030737
(eye roll)
Foucault was basically a con artist who had nothing interesting to say, so he wrote a bunch of unintelligible bullshit to dazzle his fellow pseuds.
>>8030786
I was agreeing with you
>>8030778
(smirk that slowly turns into a grimace)
>>8030813
Sorry pal! I very much agree with this notion of "benefit of the doubt".
