Tfw you are so mad about not understanding po-mo that you write a book about it

Edward Said
Hobsbawm

Edward Said is the top middle.

He probably knows what he's talking about like implied, but he's a traditionalist conservative Anglo so he's gotta oppose it.

He's not a traditionalist. That's what he claims.

Based Scruton kicking against the pricks

> Foucault? He is dead from AIDS, the result of sprees in the bath-houses of San Francisco, visited during well-funded tours as an intellectual celebrity. But his books are on university reading lists all over Europe and America. His vision of European culture as the institutionalized form of oppressive power is taught everywhere as gospel, to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it.

Jesus, is that the tone and the tactic? I don't think I could read a book length writing that takes that approach. Sounds a lot like the School of Life video on Foucault. Wanted a quick skim through his thought got 5 out of 7min of "faggot faggot sadomasochism faggot buttplay faggot AIDS queer faggot muscular thighs faggot."

>is that the tone and the tactic
>Foucault’s Les mots et les choses, the bible of the soixante-huitards, the text which seemed to justify every form of transgression, by showing that obedience is merely defeat. It is an artful book, composed with a satanic mendacity, selectively appropriating facts in order to show that culture and knowledge are nothing but the “discourses” of power. The book is not a work of philosophy but an exercise in rhetoric. Its goal is subversion, not truth, and it is careful to argue—by the old nominalist sleight of hand that was surely invented by the Father of Lies—that “truth” requires inverted commas, that it changes from epoch to epoch, and is tied to the form of consciousness, the “episteme,” imposed by the class which profits from its propagation. The revolutionary spirit, which searches the world for things to hate, has found in Foucault a new literary formula. Look everywhere for power, he tells his readers, and you will find it. Where there is power there is oppression. And where there is oppression there is the right to destroy.

Oh yes, it's designed to irritate

Being an AIDS-ridden faggot who don't need no rules or condom is a deeply important part of Foucault's thought though. You can't ignore the fact that his philosophy of resisting imaginary persecutions by shoving human limbs into your anus left him neurologically disabled in a hospital bed

It's always the same with these critical theory loving leftists. Any time anyone asks for clarification or some sort of evidence that your 10,000 page spaghetti philosophy has lead to accurate predictions you just say "Durr u dun understand, u 2 dumm". Always in that same NYU blogosphere trans-vegan Masters in Critical Genderality tone of writing. And always completely dismissive of anyone whether they're an anonymous online person or a Harvard professor.

Hicks has no grasp on postmodernism and is also the reason Peterson doesn't either (because Hicks' book on pomo is the only book on the subject Peterson has read).

On the offside chance you aren't trolling
>philosophy
>empirical research
pick one.

If you want critiques of postmodernism rooted in material reality instead of "muh fee-fees" read the following:

The Condition of Postmodernity - David Harvey
Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism - Fredric Jameson
The Illusions of Postmodernism - Terry Eagleton (accomplishes in ~90 pages what Scruton tried and miserably failed to accomplish in ~250 pages)
Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique - Alex Callinicos

If you'd like to learn about how hypocritical and fucking stupid Anglo-philistines are by virtue of the hilarious way in which they co-opt postmodern ideas without even realizing it, watch this:

youtube.com/watch?v=fAPvgybAJQU

>what is empiricism
You stupid fuck

hurr durr

a philosophy not based on empical data

>I don't see how sartre qualifies as "new left" since the core of his philosophy seems to have nothing to do with what the others address
Well his idea of radical ontological freedom is synonymous with his politics of freedom. He and Beauvoir expanded his ontology into a political idea of the "attitude of revolution/liberation."

>Durr u dun understand
People (critical theory loving leftists) usually respond like that because almost always the posts directed at curbing any discussion of the topic (postmodernism) are written like this or worse. That's not informed debate, that's derailment.

>Nietzche? He is dead from syphilis, the result of fucking a whore probably. But his books are on university reading lists all over Europe and America. His vision of "transvaluation of values" is taught everywhere as gospel to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it.
>Heidegger? He is revealed to have been a Nazi. But his "Being and Time" is found on university reading lists all over Europe and America. His vision of Dasein as human existence is taught everywhere as gospel to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it.

Virillo, which i find amusing. He rallies against their "obscuration" which he believes is done for its own sake

Why are these pop-traditionalist faggots always so angry at the mere suggestion, at even the slightest entertainment of the thought that - even if it is not itself relative, that humans certainly interact with morality as if it were a relative force, changing and in constant flux. You shot the fucking messenger, Scruton. You just can't point out that you and Foucault operate on a different axiom - but I suppose I would be neglecting my own point if I criticised Scruton, from a secular perspective for interpreting 'subversive' philosophers as daemoniacs.
Guess there's only one way to solve this.
*kills Scruton*

I don't remember the book being quite that bad, the parts on Lacan are hilarious though. Definitely better than Hicks.

Traddies get antsy about truth, because their claims come with the demand of being true at all times in all places for all peoples. That's a big load to carry around, makes one nervous.

I get the impression Scruton is trolling a little bit, he knows his supercilious prose and dogmatic claims annoy people.
Also he's somewhat of a Burkeian pragmatist; it doesn't matter that old school conservative traditionalism can be criticised in a number of ways, it's still better than the alternatives.
The user above is quoting from his essay about Paris 1968, and the sort of purposeless narcissistic anarchism which Scruton thinks is less pleasant than what's it replacing.

What tactic does he use against Nietzsche (since most of his stuff is the exact opposite)?