Why has France produced such a massive number of pseuds?

Reminder that their biggest influences were Nietzsche and Heidegger. That's why when the Heidegger nazi scandal broke they were his biggest defenders - because all there work is premised on his philosophy.

t. Chimpsky

I'm sure the gist could be expressed in a paragraph, or a listing of his contributions and an abridged explanation at the very least.

If you're planning on telling me the only way to gain a brief understanding of his work is to read all his works, or that you cannot summarize his philosophy for us, I doubt you know anything about him. And then I'd question why it is you defend him.

Stop degrading Nietzsche by associating him with these hacks. Anyone who's seriously studied him realizes that these French post-modernist/structuralist pseuds have nothing at all in common with him.

Daily reminder that, with the possible exception of Wittgenstein, there hasn't been a single philosopher of worth since the 19th century.

Which is a fucking shame, in fairness. Humanities doesn't get shit on for nothing, it's been mostly 100+ years of navel gazing.

Post-PCF Parisian gauchisme was hijacked by praxisless Marcuse clones who just wanted to be faggy scholiast celebrities among disaffected petit bourgeois college students who felt totally detached from anything resembling activism or revolution but wanted to live the myth of the barricades for the sake of a slogan. Plus, Paris invented Dada and surrealism, the original 2deep4u.

French intellectuals also kind of evolved/adapted for maximum obscurantist fitness through a process of natural selection, by elimination of poseurs who overstep their limits. If Dumezil goes up there in front of aforementioned pseudoleftist bourgeois college students and goes
>Ahh yes well you see, the nature of the ontology of the sacred is its entanglement with the never-was, and its being prior to its own being. THEREFORE, Roman religion was actually all about escaping life through symbolic triads, and all rituals were an affirmation of the being-toward-death!
and then some Anglo scholar ignores his meandering nonsense, skips to the THEREFORE part, and blows it the fuck out by proving it wrong empirically in a single article, all the other wannabe Dumezils (who had previously been in the audience thinking "that's gonna be me up there, some day, smoking a pipe and getting all the hairy undergraduate pussy with an air of cool resignation") suddenly go
>Oh fuck. Better leave out that second part, the part following "THEREFORE," where you actually make a testable or contestable hypothesis! I'll just stick with the smoke and mirrors, then.

This is why Foucault accused Derrida of obscurantisme terroriste, because he never steps outside of ambiguities, and his movement is thereby free to gel and coagulate with all the faddish and cultish behaviours and junk data of previous Parisian pseudointellectuals, like a Katamari Damaci ball of Dadaist doggerel.
>Ah yes you see deconstruction is neither a methodology nor a theory nor a philosophy nor an event; it is a "happening" that does not happen in the sense in which it is said that something happens; it is the horizon of an event whose margins are constantly approaching the disjunction of another; tomorrow I will say something that contradicts this statement, decoded to straightforward language, and if you point it out, I will impishly say you missed my true meaning; for my true meaning was inherent in the no-meaning of the articulation of a "meaning," which is itself the flight from the horizon of a....
It just goes on like this. They have no interest in getting to the part where anything has any positive application. There is no system or even a viewpoint you can glean from it. What you're supposed to do is "immerse" yourself in it until you start to see its "wisdom," i.e., until your brain picks up the Dadaist melange of nihilist commonplaces and you can self-satisfiedly rehash the behaviour of the eristic sophists several thousand years after it was cool.

Derrida is a wanton charlatan, but Foucault is a better exampleof the majority of French pseuds, because his mind was just rotted by the nihilism even when he thought he was being helpful. Derrida deliberately cultivates the smoke and mirrors and is happy to have SHOCKED old fuddyduddies with his Marcusean pageantry and adolescent nihilism. But Foucault actually had ethics and epistemological principles, or maybe it's better to say he had "virtues" suggestive of ethics and principles, because the result of his indoctrination into the Parisian mental sickness was that his insights were partially squandered and obscured, foundering on sloppy and inconsistent ontologies, reacting uncritically against -Hegelianism simply because "one must react against stuff in Paris!" Typical that all he got from Bataille was the will to destruction, without the will to create.

The schizophrenic leftist Jews of Europe, constitutionally driven toward the same will to destruction without even needing to be spiritually poisoned like the positivist elan vital Frenchfags, preempted '68 thought way befoer, just after the fin de siecle, and, unlike the French pseuds who only wanted nihilism as ornamentation to wear in some kind of pagan nihilist underworld of perpetual grayness and lamentation at the end of history, they actually grappled with the difficulty of transcending the dilemma of Kant's "age of critique." But of course the French ignore all that, and focus on masturbating each other at bourgeois gatherings to look at erotic installation art for the 50th time that week, while the bourgeois college students enjoy the "sexual revolution" alongside American consumer goods, and lay the groundwork for horrendously nihilistic postcapitalist globalism, the TRUE end of history in the form of La Masse. Only after electing Mitterand, though! Vive la Revolution! Merci Marcuse!

>Stop degrading Nietzsche by associating him with these hacks. Anyone who's seriously studied him realizes that these French post-modernist/structuralist pseuds have nothing at all in common with him.

It's true though, despite your unique conception of what it means to seriously study him. Nietzsche was a radical subjectivist, the demolition of all truth claims is a necessary prerequisite for what they went on to create, or better yet, deconstruct. The post structuralists a praise Nietzsche as the most relevant thinker of his time for this reason. There is no artifice here. This is actually the case, and it is there for anyone who wishes to access it.

This. If anything, Derrida/etc went down the same dark path as Kant - only unlike Kant, they went down it consciously. The path, of course, is the philosophy of word games and general verbiage. Nietzsche, in certain places throughout his work, pointed out that there are some glaring (and major) problems with language as a consequence in general. Kant, meanwhile, alongside most/all German Idealists, invented a philosophy founded on linguistic loopholes.

What makes these 20th/21st century heirs so unsavoury however, as points out, is their sheer propensity to obscurantism. Take Žižek for example: at his worst, he gives you a meaningless word salad laced with shit and Slovenian spit. At his best, when he's actually being clear, what he says is so obvious and/or wrong that you wonder how on earth he qualifies as a philosopher.

It's that simple, really.

And yet almost every post-modernist/structuralist is allied with Marxism and/or Marxist causes in some way or another. This is as far away from Nietzsche as you can get, to name but one example.

Calling these guys the 'heirs' to Nietzsche is retarded. At best, they are the heirs to a very narrow niche of his thought.

His basic deal is Deconstruction, which isn't a theory or a method, or "a philosophy"; it's not an established set of doctrines or propositions. If it can be called anything it would be a way of thinking, or writing. The goal of it is to analyse stuff, usually philosophical texts, and reveal the hidden assumptions that give rise to the hierarchies that the authors impose, which is usually due to them unjustifiably privileging some concept over an absent but indispensable other concept, and trying to ground it in a "transcendental signified" - a kind of all-prevailing God concept like Being, nature, or the logos.

all of the good men died sometime between the napoleonic wars and wwi

>And yet almost every post-modernist/structuralist is allied with Marxism and/or Marxist causes in some way or another
This isn't even remotely true. Foucault and Derrida, or example, have gone out of their way to say fuck Marx to some degree

>Nietzsche, in certain places throughout his work, pointed out that there are some glaring (and major) problems with language as a consequence in general.
So do his heirs. They're nothing like Kant.

Good posts.

The only valid philosophy for a man to hold is Marxian materialism.

so basically what the fuck is the point of philosophy if all it is is miring in complexities of language?

Why are so many soi-disant Marxists obscurantist? Or rather, why do so many Marxist or Marx-ish "thinks" seem anti-materialist and even "idealist"?

If you'd seen the girls who go to French universities, you'd want to become a lecturer/professor and shit-talk your way into their panties too.

*"thinkers"

Also, the answer to the original question is that France represents the triumph of bourgeois culture, despite its pretensions otherwise.

Dichotomies, they do more harm than good sometimes.

>they cannot be noetzscheans because they were marxists

like you went on to say, yes, they could have identified with a very narrow stream of his thought, and yes, they unequivocally do. it just so happens to be the most significant niche, his epistemology. who gives a shit they didn't appropriate his slave morality, ubermensch, eternal return, or whatever gives deus vult kids a cubby. They took what matters, and they used it.

>they cannot be noetzscheans because they were marxists

This is correct.

>They took what matters, and they used it.

Actually, they neglected parts of Nietzsche's philosophy that were arguably just as important, if not moreso, such as those you just mentioned.

If they took his words on Master/Slave morality and ressentiment to heart, they'd stay the fuck away from Marxism.

>wanting Nietzsche to be right-wing this bad

t. booty blasted marxist

>wanting Nietzsche do be political at all when he described himself as anti-political

>Paris invented Dada
Dada was started in Zurich, by a bunch of different Europeans, e.g., Tristan Tzara (Romanian), Hugo Ball (German), Emmy Hennings (German), Jean Arp (French), Marcel Janco (Romanian)

Because it's where the Revolution happened and as such it was the epicenter of thought.

I live in a neighbouring country and go there many times... And France just feels like a damage control country. It's going clunky. And cities have this village feel to them. Not exciting at all. Rather depressing. It doesn't even feel like it's actually doing anything... Or there's a momentum at all.
I feel like after Deleuze, Baudrillard and Foucault it's over. And especially with their Algerian rat king minority, it's just a total socio-political mess.

New York/Zurich Dada was basically proto-Dada compared to post-Duchamp/Picabia Dada in Paris and Berlin

>wanting to fit in Nietzsche with your commie party shit

I never got this and I don't even want to try.

Why don't you read him instead of opening your filthy mouth?

I bet you don't bat a single eye when Evola passes judgement on Nietzsche despite his "aristocratic soul" being resented as fuck.

derrida didn't produce philosophy, fake fan

Oh, I'm not a Derrida fan at all, I barely read any of his shit.

I just hate this "take this writer who's deemed one of the most complex writers in the 20th century and give me a summary of his life's work" mindset.

btfo

>they think its actually possible to be non-political

parceque le most trenchant social criticisms can only be expressed through difficult language blah blah

>Jacques Derrida's essay Ulysses Gramophone, which J. Hillis Miller describes as a "hyperbolic, extravagant... explosion" of the technique of close reading,[2] devotes more than eighty pages to an interpretation of the word "yes" in James Joyce's modernist novel Ulysses.

Pseudo-intellectualism is in the French DNA.

You haven't read Ulysses, have you? If you had you'd know which "yes" he wrote about, and you'd understand why it took more than 80 pages to write about.

lel the irony in this post. see Consider lurking for a another few years

Philosophy is not as complex as physics. Philosophers write enormous tomes filled with purple jargon in order to justify their academic position, because if there weren't any retards like yourself using the argument in your post these people would be out of a job. The humanities department needs to justify its own existence and so here we are, with loads of utter shite that not very bright people waste their lives studying.

Philosophical wankery is a smokescreen used to hide the fact that it's not really complex at all. If they were smarter they wouldn't be jerking off about Le Différance!, they would be physicists (or in Derrida's case a linguist).

>You're right mate, in fact philosophers are just a part of a scam conspiracy, you are so smart

(thing nobody will ever tell you)

books.google.com/books?id=jSNFAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&dq=9780416922806&pg=PT17

Derrida had a book signing at my college a year before he died and I didn't get his autograph

I don't like Evola. He's popular as a meme with the Right because he uses terms like 'Tradition'/'Aristocratic'/etc, although the context is almost always ignored.

If anything, Evola is a fuckin' Platonist.

i don't believe philosophy is just pure jargon wank

but i also don't think its technically anywhere near as hard as top level physics i.e String Theory, M-Theory etc.

>girls

"there hasn't been a single philosopher of worth since the 19th century"

hold up here...what about Quine?

>AIDs

This. The French philosopher writes to get young pussy. The German philosopher writes to drive himself mad; to think the thought so diabolical that it will make him explode in a shower of sparks and lightning bolts. Last of all, the Anglo philosopher wants to know the truth about things that don't mean anything to anyone and will use metaphors invoking trains, aliens, teleportation and QPUs with extreme prejudice to get his way. Simply put, he has autism. But at least he cares about the truth (even if it is a Ullillia sort of caring about the exact HTML color code of a certain pool of water somewhere)

Foucault had such a weird oral fixation - it's no surprise he was gay.

Thanks user. I appreciate that some people still stand for the truth in this world.

Because all smart people are interested in physics and/or linguistics. (linguistics isn't even difficult)

>The German philosopher writes to drive himself mad
german write philosophy becUSE THEY ARE IMPOTENT FROM LOSING WARS AND FROM BEING CASTRATED BY THE WINNERS

The postmodern ethics of emotivism were born from Marx, Kant and Nietzsche.
None of these philosophers are followed in full and the worldview is incoherent.

>The postmodern ethics of emotivism were born from Marx, Kant and Nietzsche.

1) Don't give Marx so much fucking credit.
2) The case for Kant being an emotivist would be shaky at best.

>The postmodern ethics of emotivism
Emotivism was the products of analytics you idiot

If you take Kant for an analytic, yes.
I'm not claiming that either of these lent to the creation of emotivism by lending their complete and understood systems. It's an amalgamation of parts of each which contradicts the particular. Kant gave importance to universality of morality, but with the destruction of teleology and classical metaphysics removed the theoretically and practically sustainable ethics.
Nietzsche helped destroy the Christian foundation of morality and Marx enabled the egalitarian spirit which replaced the Christian love for ones neighbors.
Of course this was wholly embraced by many analytical and "continental" philosophers later on, in part or as a whole, such as Russell and most "public intellectuals".
But I'm just about quoting MacIntyre, read After Virtue and Whose Justice Which Rationality if you want a stronger argument for this.

>trying to quantify knowledge

WEW

>Last of all, the Anglo philosopher wants to know the truth about things that don't mean anything to anyone and will use metaphors invoking trains, aliens, teleportation and QPUs with extreme prejudice to get his way. Simply put, he has autism.

It seems to me like instead of embracing the subjective and context-sensitive nature of reality and "truth" put forth by Nietzsche and Heidegger, they began building new crystal castles of ressentiment. Foucault seemed to have a bone to pick and other than some nods to the will to power (which he calls a bad, more or less) and his love of writing genealogies (Nietzsche's was a parody in some ways of a popular genre in his times) seems entirely full of vengeful ressentiment and completely lacking an understanding of what Nietzsche was getting at with his various critiques of German idealism.

You feel the decay in Sartre and those guys, but it really sets in as you go further. Deleuze was pretty ace though.

>If you take Kant for an analytic, yes.
wtf are you talking about

he thinks emotivism refers to the alleged french pseud "muh feels" rather than the real philosophical emotivism

"Libéraux libertaires"
Y'all niggas need to read Michel Clouscard.
He'll explain why most French intellectuals of the 20th Century are hacks.

>If you take Kant for an analytic, yes.

He's a synthetic.

And blames Kant for it? That's batshit. Is he an Objectivist?