There's a new girl in town

I've only read Crime and Punishment so far. I liked it, but his writing style (or at least the translation of it) is pretty emotionally taxing to read.

Yep.

Deconstruction is specifically Derridean. Post-structuralism was the broader movement that Derrida and other thinkers belonged to, but it was more of a coincidental synchrony between them rather than a conscious alliance.

A solid 10/10 from Pitchfork and critical acclaim.

 

Which means what?

 

I'm not very well-versed in Derrida's thought, but from what I know of it what separates deconstruction from other post-structuralist methods of critique such as discourse analysis is deconstruction's emphasis on questioning and undermining binary oppositions due to the inherently unstable nature of the meaning of the signifiers involved, which creates what they call undecidability in a text and obscures its meaning.

 

Sorry, I can't figure out your point here mainly because the terminology seems convoluted and vague to me. Probably just me...sorry. I was hoping you might be able to discuss your philosophy in simpler terms.

 

Oprah is the next logical choice...Three quarters of voters don't even know who Kanye is. Oprah would beat Trump like a drum in 2020. She's got a lot more money than Trump and unlike Trump, she didn't have a rich daddy. If she wants to be president, it is there for the taking...

 

Trump's $$$$ is NOT why he was elected. Leftists just can't grasp that.

 

Something you might want to bear in mind is that 99% of the people here don't know or care who he is...

...nor are they much inclined to go a-googling such terms on the one in a million chance of finding something even marginallyl enlightening.

 

First of all, I am not a "leftist", whatever that is this week. Secondly, I know Trump didn't win just because of his money. He won because he ran against a candidate that almost everyone hated, including a large percentage of Democrats who were very left leaning and supported Saunders. If you are trying to suggest that there is some conservative juggernaught sweeping America, you are wrong. First of all, Trump is not a conservative. He is a snake oil salesman who takes public positions in order to make money, or in the case of last year's election, to con people into voting for him. Still he was beaten in the popular vote by a real turd like Clinton and squeaked out narrow victories in a few key states to win last year. This is hardly like when Reagan kicked Carter's ass in '80, or even when Bush I pummeled Dukakis. Trump won by default and barely squeaked by. Any good liberal would have kicked his ass last year and unless he pulls a rabbit out of his hat by late 2020, he will be beaten like a drum. As an American who does not give a rat's ass about either the Democrats or the Republicans, I sincerely hope that he really does change things for the better. However he has hired a group of bank swindlers and oil barons along with his Zionist tool of a son in law to run the show. Looks like he will be another sellout like Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama...Same old crap, different day.

 

Didn't mean to slur you I meant leftists in general. As to the rest of your post I don't disagree with much of it.

 

Sorry about that! Philosophically I'm still trying to pin down a position. For the most part I've been influenced by Foucault in the sense that I see discourse analysis as the most productive way to critique politically relevant concepts like race or gender. Judith Butler and Ian Hacking have influenced me in that regard as well. But for now I'm trying to get a better grasp on other post-structuralist schools of though.

 

Hi, "philosophy of science" sounds interesting, what is it?

 

Again, I have no idea what you really mean. I don't know any of the people you cited and really don't have time to look them up. Let me ask you this...Do you reject structure? (BTW I did look up the other names and terms you used but found the explanations to be quite vague and convoluted)

 

In some way. I think structure is relevant, especially in the sciences, but not so much when studying society.

 

I too think Foucault is very useful. Although his own studies and the contemporary foucauldians usage repulse me, a more theoretically sane reading is possible. Especially from a meta-political perspective, discourse analysis is very useful.

I am very interested in media and how it influences - and is influenced by - society and here, Foucault offers great insight. (This is said by someone who is not a leftist)

I haven't read Butler, but I have decided I dislike her (lol) and therefore refuse to dwell into her work. Mary Douglas is cool though.

 

Welcome.

Looking at your picture, I think you are too thin and your hair is a mess.

 

Hmm an overly modest poststructural feminist who likes to take long walks with Zizek on the beach memes..

Anarchist!! Any chance you are in any of the ANTIFA recent lemmings rushing of cliffs pics demonstrations/pics? Much cooler avatar too... You know the whole ima ninja anarchist hipster thing that's all the rage atm?

I goter pegged guys.

 

So you support society without structure?

 

Well, first, are you really female or rather a male gay?

You talk more like a male gay than a real female.

 

@SuperSymmetry the best place to start in Philosophy is with Bertrand Russell's book "History Of Western Philosophy".

Other than outlining the evolution of Science however Russell does not say much about the Philosophy of Science other than to point out that Philosophy and Science are completely separate. Religion is completely separate from Philosophy and Science as well.

And these 3 must always be kept separate.

Religion (which you did not ask about) is ancient and wicked and is the opiate of the masses and has been used by kings and pharaohs since time immemorial to deceive the masses. Religion is doctrinal and dictatorial and not subject to Science or Philosophy. It is purely dogmatic.

The only reason I have mentioned Religion however is because it was the fundamental trigger for the development of Philosophy. While Religion originated in prehistory, Philosophy originated around 700 B.C. with Hesiod (moderation in all things) and Thales of Miletus. Philosophy became a tool of the early philosophers to question the many superstitions of early Greek polytheistic religion. Socrates was ordered executed and encouraged to flee Athens for this reason. He chose to stay and die for Philosophy.

Science was born on Jan 7, 1610 when Galileo first trained his first telescope onto Jupiter. He gathered data -- this is the first step in any science -- observation. He then observed that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter more than around the Earth. This got him in trouble with the Pope.

While the principles of logical thinking in Philosophy apply equally to Science, even so Science is more of an inductive activity inferring reasonable generalizations about observed data.

Whereas Philosophy is pure human thought, mostly deductive, and mostly analytical.

Q.E.D.

 

@Aleksander Ulyanov you probably look the same to all the girlies in the dark, just like they all look the same to you too in the dark.

 

My jury is still out on that purpose. Could be what you said.

Or it could be a male gay pretending to be female.

 

Foucault is more of a sociologist than a true philosopher.

Butler is more of a feminist sociologist as well. Not really a true philosopher.

Hacking is your man !! A true philosopher and one who specializes in Science.

I agree with Hacking on the need for more skepticism about scientific theory. After all, theory is just theory. But most scientists treat it as God-given dogma.

If you want to understand Philosophy better however you need to dig into the history of Philosophy.

 

Do males regardless of serial orientation refer to themselves immediately as feminists? That doesn't jive... wait! A transgender might..

Whew ok so now we have.. Her as a transgender, anarchist, feminist, and patch wearing member of ANTIFA with possibly free t-shirts joining.

Sounds aces to me!

 

What do you mean by "structure" ??

Molecular structure ??

Exterior physical structure ??

Social structure ??

 

You @22catch may very well be right on. My jury is still out though.