Why is French post-War philosophy so pretentious and pointless?

it is pretentious. the writing of lacan, derrida, baudrillard, to name only few offenders, is unnecessarily overblown, complex and verbose.

>who is Etienne Gilson
>who is Pierre Boutang
>who is Michel Henry
>who is Philippe Nemo
>who is Rémi Brague
>who is Gustave Thibon
>who is Pierre Magnard
>who is Maurice Clavel
>who is Louis Jugnet
>who is Roland Dalbiez
>who is Gabriel Marcel

If you only know the shit side of French contemporary philosophy please shut up.

He is a jew too you dip

Strauss was also a jew. See, how can you expect to understand these ideas when you don't understand the people who present them?

fine, ferdinand de saussure was white, barthes was white, foucault was white

Barthes was a disgusting pederast and Foucault was a degenerate HIV positive fag sadomasochist.

so?

to trigger brainlets

Again, you don't understand the dynamic here. Stop thinking about ideas as abstract transfers between different peoples with equal capabilities and take a page from Foucault and understand them as things prone to manipulation by power entities, the main one here being jews. These non-jews are cogs advancing jewish interests.

>his arguments hold less weighs cos I'm appealing to Veeky Forums's scuffed morality and implicit circle jerk
nice meme

There's a YouTube series by a retired professor called "Deleuze for the desperate" in which he tries to explain Deleuze's philosophy and make it more intellegibile. At a certain point he claims that Deleuze wrote his books with that overcomplicated style because his audience were other academics, people who could understand the text. To say it in another way: he literally didn't want brainlets to read him. My theory is that he saw what happened with Nietzsche (Nietzsche is one of his main philosophical influence) and the hordes of pseuds (like OP) misinterpreting his work and he didn't want the same to happen to him. He also probably didn't want to turn down his writing just so more people could understand him. It makes perfect sense if you consider that Nietzsche was also a huge elitist and hated plebs.
Anyway, Focault isn't hard to read nor obscure.

>Why is French post-War philosophy so pretentious and pointless?

...smug atheists flailing around in the dark, the blind leading the blind, they have no mouth but they must scream, aids, aids everywhere.

>mfw americans constantly blame us for only producing "left wing" leaning philosophers when we have geniuses like Pierre Boutang and they have Molyneux and Milo Rastapopoulos

_D

Forgot mfw

>At a certain point he claims that Deleuze wrote his books with that overcomplicated style because his audience were other academics, people who could understand the text.

but humanities/philosophy academics are brainlets and rarely agree on anything.

>Focault isn't hard to read nor obscure.

Because if he's not making obvious, rehashed points about history and power structures he's making idiotic suggestions like everyone should try homosex as a revolutionary act. Not hard or obscure to understand, but still worthless.

I dont know anyone but the first two, who are great, so i say thx for the list user, ill look into those authors

Shit thread OP, you have not read any of them

french people are crypto kikes

lol. simply being born on this planet seems to do that just fine.

so my threshold for agreeing with someone's intellectual arguments is my willingness to share a bathtub with them.
that is why pic related is the gold standard of philosophical inquiry.

I'm a little upset that none of Charles Maurras' works have been translated into English.

your hyperbole is neither funny or accurate tbqh

They were right though. Europe is OVER and has been since the conclusion of WWI

these thinkers themselves played their part in dissolution of nationalist supremacy thinking

which is probably a good thing

Show me your tittays madmaoiselle

>To say it in another way: he literally didn't want brainlets to read him.
Avicenna's soul brother.

How you could say that's a good thing given the state of France today?

france looks like it does today precisely because its nationalism, which led to colonialism. they should've never tried to conquer and assimilate the maghreb.

>Milo Rastapopoulos
hah !

L'avenir de l'intelligence a été traduit en anglais (The Future of the Intelligentsia)

Thank you, user.

You must be retarded or non-white or both. High IQ first world people building infrastructure and extracting resources from places with people who are functionally incapable of doing so themselves is not the same as squatting as a welfare recipient.

colonialism ultimately created the ties between the maghreb and continental france, which would lead to mutual immigration.

those ties only explain to what country they want to migrate, not why they wanted or felt themselves in the right of mass migrating in the first place

Derrida is pure fucking evil.

while i wouldn't call myself an expert on post-war french philosophy (my field of study is mostly confined to German philosophy, pre- and post-war), i do know a little bit, especially as regards Foucault.

what i've read of french philosophy has taught me that they are definitely pretentious, but that fact in itself is not enough to discount the content of the philosophy that is propounded in their work. the attempts to undo the debasement and domination of the heretofore tradition are viewed as necessities, and one way to accomplish that feat is to fight against the established notions of language and argumentative strategy. if your only gripe with the french philosophers is the way they speak, you're arguing from very fragile ground and, i would argue, you're displaying a rather pathetic adherence to a tradition which has proved detrimental to authentic existence.

all of these french philosophers are indebted to nietzsche and heidegger, both as positive influences, and strong argumentative pillars which one should attempt to chip away at, if one is to establish oneself as a force to be reckoned with in the philosophical world. many of them, as well, are fighting against the sartrean epidemic which poisoned a lot of philosophical thought, as his system is based on an amphetamine-fuelled misreading of heidegger.

tl;dr: don't bash content based on form or you've struck fool's gold

Nothing is mutual in this relationship. You're comparing a high IQ, high functioning group of Europeans and a low IQ, low functioning group of semites.

>using IQ as a benchmark for intelligence
spot the plebbit/r/t_d user

they do explain acceptance for maghrebian immigrants. the franco-algerian war divided the maghreb into supporters of france and arab nationalists. the former were the ones who were invited to france.

IQ, especially national mean IQ, is the best measure of not just intelligence, but of ability to achieve as well. Not even a debate on it.

going by national mean iq, italy should be wealthier and more successful in scientific departaments than germany.

clearly not the case.

Take a statistics course you disgustingly statistical ignoramus.

Really? Italy has a north-south racial split, with the northern, more Germanic states being far more productive. Do you have any idea what you're talking about here?

French philosophy has awful form and meaningful content. You gotta look for them golden nuggets of Heidegger below all the shit. You can find a lot of necessary criticisms on the establishment in Baudrillard for example, notably if you care about the influence of ads and consumerism, but it sounds so desperately pretentious that sometimes you just want to put it down. Even then, there is content to be acquired there.

certainly, i do.

northern italy still doesn't hold a candle to most of germany. in germany, the south is the more successful region, despite having more immigrants and less "germanic" genes.

>Not even a debate on it

>medicaldaily.com/iq-test-accurate-way-measure-intelligence-or-are-mental-abilities-something-you-cant-put-297244
>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627312005843
>webmd.com/brain/news/20121218/iq-test-really-measure-intelligence#1

Took me 10 secs to google. It's the nature of the donald plebbitor to smugly talk about things you know nothing about after watching a documentary, but please take your incel self somewhere else. You're bringing down the board quality with your stupidity. Stick to your containment subreddits

>but it sounds so desperately pretentious that sometimes you just want to put it down

yeah, that is my main concern with baudrillards writing. it's written like something that places style above content.

> going by national mean iq, italy should be wealthier and more successful in scientific departaments than germany.

>northern italy still doesn't hold a candle to most of germany.

Well which is it? You're out of your league here.

Always the same fucking shit replies when someone says poststructuralism. I'm getting tired of this bullshit. We should flood /pol/ with leftist discussions, foucault derrida or something. I'll make a thread about this in the near future.

get the fuck out already /pol/ no one wants to engage you

As Richard Lynn and others subsequently have shown, the most important indicator of a nation's success is mean IQ. Your webmd articles mean jack shit.

"Success" is measured in sale of dildos and nigger ooga booga music so I wouldn't really consider it a very worthwhile goal.

southern germany > northern germany > northern italy > southern italy

something doesn't fit your pattern of south/north divide here.
germany is also wealthier than most of the uk, a "whiter" nation.

The north south divide is in Italy, there is very little difference between north and south Germany. IQ is the best indicator of success, period, and it's easy to understand and quantify along racial lines.

In addition to the guy that first replied to you, I'd like to also point out that you're a faggot for moving goalposts. Please go back to pleddit and kys

italy has a higher average iq than germany, as far as i know. so does mongolia. they're still nowhere as successful.

Not the guy that you are replying to but you should really take into account the fact that what you are referring to as "Northern Germany" is poorer than Southern Germany solely because it contains the formerly Communist Eastern Germany in it.
So, unless the guy you are arguing with said that iq is the sole factor in success, your argument falls down on its face rather quick.

Neither Italy nor Mongolia has a higher average IQ than Germany, wtf are you talking about? I must assume you are black if you're missing the mark by this much.

>one guy whose butthole I tongue in my dreams expressed his opinion pertaining subjects outside his realm of expertise and in addittion, made sweeping scientific arguments that were contested even in the 20th, and I'm going to deliberately ignore all advances genetic research and studies of our time

your statement has no more weight than: my mom said you're a nigger

>solely because it contains the formerly Communist Eastern Germany in it.

that's not the case. the south of germany is noticeably wealthier than the central and northern parts, which always were capitalist, as well.

>So, unless the guy you are arguing with said that iq is the sole factor in success, your argument falls down on its face rather quick.

unless i'm arguing with someone who claims that iq is the sole factor, i'm not disagreeing with him/her.

i took the first source i could find, which places italy and mongolia above germany
iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

which is yours?

>the south of germany is noticeably wealthier than the central and northern parts
I would like to see your source on that. I am no expert but, from what I recall, the most prosperous regions of Germany where north-western ones like North Rhine-Westphalia.

illiterate

>sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609000634?via%3Dihub

>On the basis of several reviews of the literature, Lynn [Lynn, R., (2006). Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] and Lynn and Vanhanen [Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T., (2006). IQ and global inequality. Augusta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.] concluded that the average IQ of the Black population of sub-Saharan Africa lies below 70. In this paper, the authors systematically review published empirical data on the performance of Africans on the following IQ tests: Draw-A-Man (DAM) test, Kaufman-Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the Wechsler scales (WAIS & WISC), and several other IQ tests (but not the Raven's tests). Inclusion and exclusion criteria are explicitly discussed. Results show that average IQ of Africans on these tests is approximately 82 when compared to UK norms. We provide estimates of the average IQ per country and estimates on the basis of alternative inclusion criteria. Our estimate of average IQ converges with the finding that national IQs of sub-Saharan African countries as predicted from several international studies of student achievement are around 82. It is suggested that this estimate should be considered in light of the Flynn Effect. It is concluded that more psychometric studies are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western IQ tests for Africans.

>racialreality.blogspot.mx/2011/08/devastating-criticism-of-richard-lynn.html
For the papers without needing to buy them

You truly are an ADHD addled nigger aren't you? You propose these heavy claims but you have never even bothered to objetively analyze your own autismo deductions just because you were titillated by a /pol/ post paired with a pepe or something

This says Italy and Germany have the same (102) and puts Mongolia at 98. Mongolia has some weird nomadic spatial IQ boost but is low in other areas. As another poster said, east Germany has a communist hangover and as I said southern Italy and Sicily especially weighs down the northern Italian average, which is to say, as I've been saying from the start, that IQ is and ability is based on race.

statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/

Nevermind. I just checked it and I am wrong. The most well off part of the country is Schleswig-Holstein in the extreme north of the country followed by Bavaria in the south.
So we were both wrong.

riddle me this: is zionism a capitalist plot, or is capitalism a zionist plot

You must have replied to the wrong person because I'm not saying Africans don't have low IQs and aren't dysfunctional: they do and are, and this is due to race.

so now we established that italy is performs far worse than germany despite similar iq, and that northern italy, which is even above italy and germany in general, is still poorer than germany.

Neither, because capitalism has nothing to do with it.

>Italy has a racial split
Blatantly wrong you polnigger, a lot of the workforce in northern Italy is composed by southern immigrants and their descendants. You're completely retarded if you think that the average genetic difference between a southern and a northern Italian is relevant

Did you read it in French?

No, you're the retard I intended to reply to. Please read the green text repeatedly until your low cognitive abilities are able to grasp the overarching general argument and criticism of your propagandist idol that preyed on people without education, such as yourself.

Once again, please kill yourself and attempt to pick up on basic reading comprehension skills.

no. i would've loved to be born as french native speaker, but i wasn't.

This is the only picture of Foucault I've ever seen and I always thought he was black.. how embarrassing of me

it's not all bad, but the French have idealized "Le Penseur" to an unusual extent.

intellectuals play a much larger role in public life than they do in Anglosphere, which should be a good thing, but as a consequence there's an arms race to look like the smartest guy in the room

anyway that's my dumb opinion

Seems more that certain regions in Germany perform worse due to recent economic/cultural (and probably Slavic, i.e., racial) factors and certain regions in Italy perform worse due to racial factors. Sicily has 10% semitic admixture which causes them to be less intelligent and more violent. IQ is based on race though, that's the underlying point here.

>black
>philosopher

now c'mon

For some reason people think that pretentious = bad as if axiomatic that pretensious work can't be good.

It absolutely is relevant and groups like the Lombards are more successful due to their racial makeup.

>says africans have low IQ
>fails to understand an explicit statement and study

How the fuck are you talking about these things but misunderstood the study? The fucking irony of it is as depressing as it is hilarious

what a fucking nigger

nah, that's desperate bullshit coming from you, son. the wealthiest regions of germany (nrw, bavaria, baden-wurttemberg) have the highest number of immigrants -- by far, while the poorest (in the east) have the least.

I did read it, and since it confirms what I'm saying I can only assume you're an idiot.

Who's talking about immigrants? We're talking about race and IQ. Of course immigrants are going to flock to the wealthiest regions of a country.

how did this turn into a racebait thread?

the implication is pseudo-profundity

Let me highlight the important bit:

>It is concluded that more psychometric studies are needed to address the issue of measurement bias of western IQ tests for Africans.

Your cognitive ability is like a 7 year old's, but if you still think after reading that it confirms what you're saying then you're a moron beyond any help. An actual nigger is more apt than you. The only solution for you is to be lined up against a wall and shot so you stop being a burden to any type of discourse.

Do you have a steam/plebbit/jewtube page or something? You're like a character from a Confederacy of Dunces and I want to know to find out more about the habits of severely autistic person.

>It absolutely is relevant and groups like the Lombards are more successful due to their racial makeup.
No it isn't you stormnigger, read a book on italian internal migration

what a stupid thread