I studied International Relations and Ethics but would like to get into critical theory and political psychology. Gramsci is pretty big in IR and his perspective makes a lot of sense to me but I feel like psychology/psychoanalysis has a lot to offer to the field.
Should I start with Lacan? Laclau? Zizek? Freud? Derrida?
I'm so lost.
Don't start with Freud he's not relevant anymore. Honestly Fir an IR perspective I'd start with cross cultural psychology stuff, and continue into modern psychological though
>but would like to get into critical theory and political psychology.
>critical theory
wew lad
How about you start by disregarding all books on western philosophy and science from Plato on and then shoving a big handful of shit into your throat.
>critical theory
jej
fuck off
cheers
My greatest desire in life is sending champagne socialists like you to Venezuela.
It's funny socializing with Marxists and discussing their theories in comfy universities, it's another thing when your policies get innocent people to fight for food with dogs.
so you not only fell for "le start with the greeks" but you're proud of it too? gosh
nice irrelevant comment
your best bets would be Freud and Zizek as far as general interest and accessibility goes.
>Venezuela isn't part of the system of global capital
>"it's le evil communism at work" meme
t. Butthurt Postmodernist
>Only reason why Venezuela is failing is because of global capital
>Can't be because of their corrupt subhuman selves trying to be "le socialism makes the world a better place"
Meanwhile, they have one of the highest oil exports in the world which is state owned, and yet another country which is analogous to that, Norway, is literally a utopia compared.
my grandpa lynched commies and im proud of him
I will lynch you, bourg.
>highest oil exports in the world
>record low oil prices
Venezuela was forced to sell at the market price and got cucked by the global elite who don't want communism to be seen as viable alternative.
>Gramsci is pretty big in IR
lel
Throw your diploma away, kid
You're unlikely to make sense of any of those writers (excluding freud) without reading Hegel and Heidegger first.
Then it's all about what you're interested in. Lacan feels a lot like pseudo-scientific mysticism, but his works are great for thinking about the relationship between desire and language. Zizek is a frankenstein's monster made from the corpses of Marx and Lacan, but his philosophical insights and readings of popular culture are incredibly erudite. Derrida is good if you want to understand deconstruction, but its very easy to find yourself in a mess in the middle of all his rhetorical silliness (Zizek does a very good parody of Judith butler's deconstructive bullshit on youtube).
Best place to start imo is with Foucault - he's one of the few 20th century philosophers concerned with the tyrannical consolidation of power whose writings aren't just an exercise in obscurantism.
Postmodernism is true though
How is he wrong?
>your policies get innocent people to fight for food with dogs
that never happened in non-socialist countries, right?
wow, your grandpa killed workers that wanted a better life
you truly are cool, dog
It makes me happy to know he's either already dead or will die soon
But if not we can always send him to the gulag
You look at the some unis' syllabuses, duh.
Perhaps take this over to Veeky Forums, they might be able to help you out more here.
Other than that I would agree on one of the previous posts about Foucault, would be worth looking at him.