Comment by Der_Einzige | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Der_Einzige | Hacker News Reader

I like attacking academics for careerism as much as the next guy (and especially in the context of the strange embrasure of post modernist authors) but they straight up aren't even talking about the worst form of this yet.

The French authors listed at least had a sembalance of value from their works. Hell, I'd highly recommend everything Arendt wrote and Derrida wrote at least one good book on the Marx/Stirner rivalry. Plus if you're getting a philosophy degree you basically need to read everyone on that list (okay maybe exclude Foucault cus he says some dumb and anti-historical shit about leprosy)

But this piece failed to really get at the heart of Charlatanism. What really scares me are the "academics" who unironically believe in psychoanalysis today. It's not just for fashion - it's pure lunancy. These are your "lacanians". Try reading Lacan, or Deleuze and Guattari and you will see a whole level of bullshit one wouldn't even imagine possible. Seriously the story of Jacques Lacan and his popularity today among academics should scare you.

Luckily, no one takes psychoanalysis seriously in the cognitive sciences. I can't imagine getting funding for a neuroimaging study of the Id.

Philosophize This just did a series on Foucault [0] and Deleuze [1] which I got a lot of value out of. Particularly the Deleuze discussion about how post-modernism doesn’t always have to devolve into deconstruction. That was eye-opening and hugely helpful for me. And Foucault’s idea of the panopticon is probably very relevant to anyone interested in surveillance capitalism.

I studied History at Cal so I understand the contempt for the philosophers and their academic followers. They can be personally obnoxious and seem to be intentionally obscure. Post-modernism seems to be creating more problems on campuses than its solving. But when I hear a good, plain English account of their arguments, like in Philosophize This, the ideas help me understand the world, and I’m thankful to them for that.

[0] https://open.spotify.com/episode/1tcYLy2ILoRoDddvR56Kxy?si=O...

[1] https://open.spotify.com/episode/0E80qwTOz41UruHfyZMc2P?si=n...

Foucault's only half decent book was discipline and punish (where the panopticon chapter is in) but if you actually read him (or open up any of DnGs anti-oedipus) you will see very rapidly why you had to have a secondary source understand them.

It's because modern people don't read Charlatan authors as much as Foucault did. Foucault is a terrible historographer and no amount of writing against "metanarratives" or "totalizing descriptions of history" saves him from this

"Deconstruction" is not what I critique. I critique people who unironically stlll believe in the powers of psychoanalysis. DnG don't get a pass for inventing schozoanalysis - it's way worse!

I agree that secondary sources do a better job at explaining the ideas than the originals. I did read Discipline And Punish though and got through it fine. My understanding of the text mapped well to the Philosophize This podcast on the topic. It would be exhausting to read his whole body of work, though. Same goes for any of the post-modernists. I guess they might have argued that they were venturing into new intellectual territory and that language wasn’t well-suited to what they were trying to explain, but if that’s the case then that’s just elitist BS in my eyes. The secondary sources prove that you can explain these ideas in plain language just fine.

Didn’t mean to imply that you were critiquing deconstruction. I bring it up because in my experience the major complaint around these authors is that they seem to just tear down the “grand narratives” of the past without showing the way to a better future. I think this is the main problem on campuses right now. I for one can definitely say that was my college experience. I left with the clear impression that a lot of ideas I had grown up with were BS, meanwhile my ideas on how to build a better future were vague at best.

> the major complaint around these authors is that they seem to just tear down the “grand narratives” of the past without showing the way to a better future.

IME the main complaint is that they seemingly operate from a standpoint that the work of "tearing down the grand narratives" can itself be a "grand narrative", a "theory" of its own. We shouldn't be surprised when this doesn't work very well! The fact that they aren't "showing the way to a better future" (unlike, e.g., pragmatists who can be just as skeptical as postmodernists when it comes to all-encompassing grand stories!) is really a symptom, not the main issue.

Pretty sure the panopticon predates Foucault by at least a century.

Foucault has a fascinating take on Jeremy Bentham’s idea of the panopticon and uses it as a metaphor to explain the pervasive sense of surveillance throughout modern society. Highly recommend this podcast on the topic: https://open.spotify.com/episode/1tcYLy2ILoRoDddvR56Kxy?si=4...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com