“The various forms of education or ‘normalization’ imposed upon an individual consist in making him or her change...

Foucault said that the French make up bullshit and gibberish because otherwise people won't think they're profound. Apparently it's much worse than 10%.

This is what liberals actually believe.

What is an academic dickriding academia?

Why haven't you attained BwO status yet?

This guy has: rhizomes.net/issue11/hurley/index.html
>Using a reel of embroidery thread inserted in my anus, I spin a web approximately 30 cm in diameter and promptly masturbate over it, ejaculating onto the web. The whole process is captured by a tiny spy-camera attached to the underside of my crotch using lengths of elastic and a number of safety pins.
>I walk to Hamadrydad Park, at the end of our street in Butetown, and dig a hole roughly ten inches deep before eating several spoonfuls of the dirt that I have excavated. Later that evening, drunk on Foucault and a half bottle of cheap vodka, I go cruising in Club Exit where I meet a 22-year-old (possibly called Stuart). We go home, exchange seminal fluids (both swallowing) and he leaves in a taxi at 3.45am. We do not exchange telephone numbers and I do not see him again.

No, I think they probably have a more nuanced opinion, but I am confused and that is all I can see in them.

If you don't understand what he is saying, then you need to go back to plebbit you fucking autodidact. It's a basic criticism of the Platonism which forms our academy.

they don't have examined opinions at all, because if they stopped and thought rationally for even an hour their entire worldview would collapse.

Hence the state of constant anxiety that veers into panic whenever a taboo comes into sight

The point is to make you think in a different way.
By the way that quote isn't hard to understand at all.

The point is that he used 100 words to say what he could tell with 10, and actually ruins his point by using so many words.

Hon, you're the liberal. That's why you love dominance so much, because you are dominant. But soon, you will be dead in the ground with maggots in your arse.
MUH RAISINS

Nope. Go back to plebbit, autodidact subhuman

He said only 10% of it is gibberish?

>The point is to make you think in a different way.
What way then? You can justify any type of shitty and vacuous writing by saying "it's meant to make you think".

I don't think this is a proper reading of those writers. In fact, all the humanities undergrads who reduce Foucault to "muh institutional power structures" are missing the point entirely. The point behind post-structuralism is the second-order matrix of power (what Deleuze terms an 'abstract machine' in the virtual) behind those particular power structures, which cannot be attributed to any particular subjects

Yeah
critical-theory.com/foucault-obscurantism-they-it/

>What way then?
There isn't a single one.
>You can justify any type of shitty and vacuous writing by saying "it's meant to make you think".
No you can't. It's the same reason Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms btw.

>For two hours I trail a mucous trail with my tongue over the interior surface of a greenhouse, wearing only a jockstrap and a camouflage-print gymsack. Inside the gymsack is a large water bottle containing a mixture of my own urine, faeces, vomit and semen. The greenhouse is shared with a number of other lives snails collected from the wild in Cardiff Bay, themselves moving and existing independently of, but alongside, me on the glass.

>On a sheet of clear plastic under which lies a video camera, I eat a lunch of tomato and couscous salad with a lemon dressing, and repeatedly regurgitate it until the food became a liquid consistency and I am able to ingest it simply by sucking the mixture through my lips.

>second-order matrix of power (what Deleuze terms an 'abstract machine' in the virtual) behind those particular power structures, which cannot be attributed to any particular subjects
Is this supposed to something other than spontaneous order of the capitalism variety?

Fuck off, STEMsperg. Get a rope.

>There isn't a single one.
You can apply this to everything, even meaningless computer-generated word-salad, and you could deflect any criticism by saying "there are more interpretations possible, you're just not getting it" and it could go on and on forever until you throw yourself out of a window due to shame.

It's literally gobbledygook. As Sokal, Chomsky, et al (people with a bigger IQ than you) would agree.

so you know how the modernists in painting and literature were militating against consumption in the early 20th century? they wanted to make art that couldn't be easily gobbled up by the masses so they deliberately used styles and syntaxes that were nearly impossible to understand at a moment's glance. the dadaists are the obvious examples, of course now they are thoroughly commodified. but take Debord for example. most of Society of the Spectacle is pretty accessible. there are some incredibly dense chapters about the failures of scientific marxism, but most people skip those. Debord got really depressed because he felt like his book was consumed and then appropriated mistakenly by career academics. so the spectacle became part of the spectacle.

i think something to keep in mind when you're approaching these really tough french boys (not to mention the frankfurt school, and especially adorno, who was EXTREMELY militant about defying conventions of writing style and accepted forms of discourse; to this day he is impenetrable to most people without a great effort) is that they weren't just spewing shit onto the pages out of nothing. they had extensive backgrounds in philosophy. they were trained for years and years about argumentation and types of understanding and language and so on. they had plans. they wrote in such eccentric ways because they believed that STYLE was part of their project. the writing itself contributes to the rebelliousness of the theory that it creates. that's why i would say they resisted making everything simple and easy. because 1. they had complicated things they wanted to say and 2. they didn't want their theories to be misappropriated and abused for superficial purposes.

>i think something to keep in mind when you're approaching these really tough french boys (not to mention the frankfurt school, and especially adorno, who was EXTREMELY militant about defying conventions of writing style and accepted forms of discourse; to this day he is impenetrable to most people without a great effort) is that they weren't just spewing shit onto the pages out of nothing. they had extensive backgrounds in philosophy. they were trained for years and years about argumentation and types of understanding and language and so on. they had plans. they wrote in such eccentric ways because they believed that STYLE was part of their project. the writing itself contributes to the rebelliousness of the theory that it creates. that's why i would say they resisted making everything simple and easy. because 1. they had complicated things they wanted to say and 2. they didn't want their theories to be misappropriated and abused for superficial purposes.
What a load of bollocks. If you can explain something in a simple fashion, but choose to complicate it more than it is actually necessary explain your ideas, because you want to stick it to the plebs or appear edgy, go fuck yourself.

No user, you can't.
A quick example:
heojfpwjcpapspwjcpqkfn65lKsieoxkslalsls++(hsn
No matter how much I try, I'm never going to convince anyone that what I wrote above is good writing. The possibility of multiple ways of writing doesn't imply that all types of writing are equal.

Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms to activate the nervous system as a whole. He and his influencees write in very different ways.
Nope. IQ is a nonmetric, and you just named two morons.

>IQ is a nonmetric
IQ is predictive of many outcomes, which makes it actual science, as opposed to 95% of what passes for it in the social sciences

Aristotle did the same thing, you know. You're ignoring a lot of insightful philosophy if you refuse to read something just because it could have been said more simply.

>two morons.
Let us see your accomplishments, pseud.

That's not word salad you mongoloid. Schizophrenic writings are word salad, psychopathic ramblings are word salads. Word salads have 'words'

>1. they had complicated things they wanted to say and 2. they didn't want their theories to be misappropriated and abused for superficial purposes.

you translated that to

>you want to stick it to the plebs or appear edgy

i think if i was writing something theoretical i would probably be less intricate about it than the old thinkers were. i think i would do it just to keep it out of the hands of neanderthals like you.

>penis book Dante was the story of art of Alessandro Manzoni performed as Bombo from monster allergy
Better now?

There's a difference between saying things as simply as possible and intentional obscurantism. Aristotle was actually able to translate his ideas into a provocative yet lucid literary style. Deleuze wrote a book and then boobytrapped it with a bomb to make sure that only certain people (those who can dismantle boobytraps) can truly appreciate it.

Nope.
>science
Not valid, sorry sweetie.
Looks like you don't understand science. Consider suicide as a remedy.
Show me their's. Oh wait, there is none. Meanwhile, I own this world.
Fuck off with your white supremacism, modernist.

Aristotle is very easy to understand, at least the translations I've read are. He lays everything out in the simplest terms possible, and the arguments proceed logically.

I'm not even saying Deleuze and co. are without merit but the way they write is insane

I love this poster btw

IQ is literally predictive of many outcomes, are you just denying reality?

They are easy to understand, you're just illiterate.

I am probably better read in my second and third languages than you are in your first.

>writing things clearly and in a simple fashion means your work will be more easily misconstrued, misunderstood, or misappropriated than if you wrote it in an obscure, vague, and overly complicated way
Uhm, the latter lends itself far more to your concerns. People can take gobbledygook and twist it into anything they want.

I personally find when I'm having a hard time with Deleuze that it gets me really pissed off and I renounce the work out of a personal vendetta rather than any real opinion I have about what's being written. I think a lot of people here who get pissed in a similar way should ask themselves if they really put in an effort before tossing the thing away and deciding that something was the indisputable truth.

Aristotle was one of the first writers to divide his writings into esoteric and exoteric. Yes, people translate the esoteric parts as clearly as they can, but things in that category were often written with a complete disregard for simplicity.

>Meanwhile, I own this world.
You're an obese, ugly, manlet and probably a virgin. At least 3 of these are correct and apply to you.

Nigger, even the IEP blatantly states that Capitalism and Schizophrenia is notoriously obscurantist. I suppose it could have merit if Deleuze wanted to imitate the ramblings of a madman and force people to sift through it to find a kernel of truth.

Yeah that's true. Most of the shit churned out in humanities departments that deal with 20th cent theorists is riddled with misunderstandings and abuses of people like Deleuze and Foucault. I don't think saying that obscure writing 'lends itself far more' is correct, though. Look at the impact that Jordan Peterson is having on public opinion vs. what a whitepaper about Derrida might have. The former could impact presidential voting patterns. The latter is just another shitty drop in a shitty ocean.

I think people are rightfully mad when they read 700 pages of what is basically a flawed theory on schizophrenia, which we now know is a brain disorder.

Yeah, what would we do without Derrida?

Jordan Peterson has touched a real problem in society, without coming across as a complete crsnk. Whether his solutions are good or not is a different question.

>hurr durr old theories are canceled once medicine proves that it's all just chemicals

it's not an attempt to understand schizophrenia as something besides a brain disorder. it's to say that the way the disorder functions can show us something about how our society functions.

Why exactly did he concern himself with schizophrenia? Did he actually mean the mental illness or is it jsut some term he used for something else?

It is not the slumber of reason that engenders monsters, but vigilant and insomniac rationality.

>Jordan Peterson has touched

you've learned well from him that you can get through to simpletons by making everything black and white. peterson is capitalizing on a major narrative of the disenfranchised middle class. he's not 'touching' on anything. and he doesn't aggravate people because he's careful not to make anyone feel ignorant (the pejorative is really revealing, what are you 12?). no one wants to work for their knowledge, because that's what the cucks in their ivory towers do. we want things simple and clean and sugary.

Thanks, Gilles.

Still, a better account of the Schreber case than "muh repressed homosexuality."

wtf I love Deleuze now

maybe they need to read Kant again and stop sperging out.

>no one wants to work for their knowledge, because that's what the cucks in their ivory towers do.

Right, it's not as if many influential philosophers (Marx, Schopenhauer) ranted against "establishment" thinkers because they weren't allowed a place in there.

No one "disallowed" Schopenhauer from anything, he quit the University of Berlin of his own volition because Hegel was speaking to a packed house while he was luck to have five attendees at a lecture

establishment academics deserve to be raked over the coals just as much as demagogues like peterson. conformism is the enemy.

Conformism is biologically programmed human behaviour, you lefty tit.

i think we're done here

wtf I love Rick and Morty now

>Claim AIDS is fake and just a ploy of capitalism to target homosexuals, blacks, and drug addicts
>die of AIDS
what did he mean by this?

youtube.com/watch?v=-0dM6j7pzQA

>humans are not biologically and evolutionarily inclined towards conformity
Fucking lefty. This is why your ideas always lead to tens of million dead in peacetime. You deny and neglect human nature.

yeah cause you guys disperse like cockroaches whenever anybody brings up actual measurable results, because they contradict your ideology

i look forward to the day when the technocrats actually try to legalize statistics. y'all really make me giggle sometimes.

hitler was the most calculating, rational, formulaic dictator who ever lived by the by. deathcamps were kept in check with major efforts in bookkeeping and the Nazi regime was undergirded by state of the art technological and medical research. something to keep in mind.

Is this what schizophrenia looks like?

Hitler didn't even know death camps existed. There is no evidence for it.

see your reply here isn't even vaguely related to what we said lol

yes it is. read again. and think.
your world must be so very tiny

goodnight lads

the chad deleuze scholar

>Deleuze and co. are without merit but the way they write is insane
this is correct insofar as D&G's prose is partially inspired by the schizo writing of Artaud, Schreber, Nerval and others

this means alejandro manzoni rip off the penis book of Dante, and Bombo from the "monster allergy" show, make a movie of it
ya know?

I'm not going to completely assume how you intended that, but what the post you responded to you is saying is far more substantial and less judgmental than you likely think it is and you should seriously think about it without the lens you seem to be viewing it through.

The sentence full of retarded presumptions and artificial ballast. He's basically larping in his own fantasy world.

So post-structuralism essentially embodied the increasingly verbose meme?

that he was right!

Reality doesn't exist. Go back to /pol/, 'race realist'.

Nope. Project harder, illiterate.
Reading 'le classix xDDDDD' doesn't make you well-read. You aren't even aware of scholarship. You're a basic bitch and read like a basic bitch.
Project harder.
Truth doesn't exist. try harder, dumbass.

>LE SCIENCE XDDDDDD DAE KARL OF SAGON???
DAE LE SCIENCE PROVE LE NIGGER DUMB?!?! XDDDDDD RIG AND MORDY XDDDDD

Human nature doesn't exist. Try again, colonist. Or just die, up to you.
DAE LE OBJECTIVE FAX??!?!?! XDDDDDD RIG AND MORDY XDDDDD

you're a remarkably shit poster

MUH
WHITE
CIVI
LI
ZA
SHUUUUUUUUN

Is this like ought is distinction powered by mescaline?

because he was educated this way

>School changes people
>changes people's subjectification

so doesn't the weather. Also various biology including of subjectificationers and other sorts of subjectificationees. A lair of purity doesn't exist in our consciousness that isn't bound to both conditions and memories of their variability. The idea that a coherent grouping of a reality can be dominating is as ridiculous as the idea that you can group reality coherently without attempting to make some personal issue clear. We might be able to objectively define a set of variables for coming up with an interesting attempt at some arguable definition, but we won't have an accurate sense of where new language and new subectication comes from until it arises, not because it is completely determined by knowable sets of data that we have of yet to define either. The problem isn't about a dominating villainy, or at least it isn't any more in the digital age. The type of communication that exists has always been directly connected to environmental, economic, political, and cultural conditions, but how they imprint on individuals moment to moment, generation to generation is also as important in determining what a subjective experience of a dominating reality actually consists of in the brain and body.

This reads like a 14 year old christian girl's essay on why video games make boys violent. Does he ever plan to write YA?

Why did you use such a simple passage to try and make this argument?

I also feel that everyone is worth the same.

Ah - ah, you think that's hard? Try this, kid.
>we are all handymen: each with his little machines. For every organ-machine, an energy-machine: all the time, flows and interruptions. Judge Schreber has sunbeams in his ass. A solar anus. And rest assured that it works: Judge Schreber feels something, produces something, and is capable of explaining the process theoretically. Something is produced: the effects of a machine, not mere metaphors.

>vigilant and insomniac rationality.

Rationality implies scepticism too, though. And knowing what you can't know or don't know gives you reason enough to relax. This statement would work better as a diagnosis for Ration Al, the war time thief of war rations - but those days are gone and what good is it to talk of Al now other than to share a laugh and gossip before the roast is done.

based