When exactly did French Philosophy go to shit?

The French are good.

Irigaray's a fucking genius, props to OP for using the actual quote and not some shit made up by that American.

fpbp

Idk what's with the hateboner this board has for Derrida when Veeky Forums sucks Heidegger's cock on the regular. I blame the literary departments of American universities and their bastardized "deconstruction"

Because Derrida is associated with postmodernism and feminism and Heidegger is associated with Nazism.

It's not difficult to work out

lol no

E=mc^2 is not the equation for the speed of light, it's the equation for the maximum speed information can be transmitted in the universe. Light happens to travel at that speed.

Can someone explain what she meant by this,to me it seems like pure feminine rubbish but I'd like to hear an explanation

I *like* Derrida, I just find that everything bad happens "in response to" him or his ideas. I also don't like Heidegger, so there's that

Benveniste and the start of the infiniterelativism.

The decline begins with Comte.

...

>if someone triggers people I don't like they're automatically good

everyone look at this "cogito egro sum" believing pseud and laugh

It can be, although that's beside the point. She's saying there are other important points to focus on outside of extremes.

>I also don't like Heidegger
Don't ever reply to me again.

Heidegger is okay, it's what led me to Harmon, Bryant, and Morton

Does she want to replace c with a different variable in the equation or something?

Also, why is choosing the fastest speed or the extreme something 'sexed'.

What would a female have done instead?
Also what does 'privilege' have to do with anything

It seems like she is trying to project her feminine insecurity onto math

What do you think it would mean to replace a vatiable in an equation? By this I mean are you intentionally being pissy and uncharitable or are you actually allowing for the possibility she has an idea of what she's talking about.

I can assure you she does know what she's talking about although many assume bad faith.

Is she Basque?

can someone explain to me in retard language what she is implying here? shes too intellectual for me

>people are actually defending this
No, this has to be bait.

Not trying to be uncharitable, I just really don't understand what she is saying here. She seems to have a problem with using the speed of light in e=mc2 because it is the fastest speed and therefore 'sexed'.

It just seems like typical feminine mumbo jumbo to me because e=mc2 is a mathematical equation. I don't understand how an equation can be 'sexed'.

There's a tendency in science to go for extremes such as what if we travelled at the fastest possible speed or what if we converted all this mass to energy etc etc. However there are also interesting points not at the extremes. An interesting point of comparison would be fourier transforms v wavelet analysis.

She looks pretty basque now that you mention it

is she saying because it is the fastest speed dictated by a man and his symbols and because there is no greater speed that women are in turn subject to the control of men in all aspects of life? im so lost

*and my son

The point goes a little deeper since it partially references Einstein's whole riding on a lightbeam thought experiment and is in comparison to fluid mechanics (if you ever study it in any great detail you see it's a fairly cobbled together theory, Irigaray views this as more feminine). What she's saying is that there are other equally interesting equations out there where we aren't focusing on lightspeed. In a sense they're even more realistic for many situations because you don't have a complete matter to energy conversion or something like that.

But why is she saying that the extremes are 'masculine' and 'sexed'. Would women do things differently?

Also I don't know much about Fourier transforms or wavelet analysis but I assume that it was a man who did the work for Fourier transforms and the best way to analyze them, and also a man who did wavelet analysis and wondered if Fourier transforms could be analyzed that way, etc. Men are doing most of the work in mathematics, yes there are some women but to suggest that women would do math differently also suggests that women have different brains which most feminists would disagree with.

No. Irigaray looks at the ideology of being a man/masculine or a woman/feminine in society. So for example she semifamously did a thing where she asked chikdren what they would do if they woke up tomorrow as the other sex. Girls answered theu would become firemen and doctors and so on. Boys answered that they would kill themselves mostly.

In this sense something being manly or masculine is somewhat incidental to being an actual man or woman. It's just a tendency or behaviour in society that people use to assert a sense of masculinIty. Female scientists equally can do masculine things, as can male scientists act femininely.

It's an academic way of talking about dick measuring contests. The whole article is a bit more nuanced than that, but the speed of light thing is p much saying there is a culture in science that we would recognize as masculine and that this limits what we can study or find out etc etc

She's very pragmatic really.

Either masculinity and femininity are intrinsically tied into being a man/woman or the concepts cannot exist, take your pick. You cannot say that there are just two sets of behavior that aren't linked into biology that are just arbitrary and a man or a woman can have both masculine or feminine qualities.

As I'm reading it, the text seems to refer to the fact that the speed of light is used in a modified form instead of a non-modified form of another number. I can substitute in "c^2" as variable "d" to write the equation as 'e=md'. Yet there is no common concept that is named "c^2" or "d" in the same right that "c" is given the name 'speed of light', so the former version of the equation is used, as "c" is known to have/identified as having importance. The number d is, herein, "vitally necessary" yet it is not used or named.

>and also a man who did wavelet analysis and wondered if Fourier transforms could be analyzed that way,
The history of wavelet analysis is complicated, no individual strictly speaking came uo with it, it was like several disparate groups not talking to each other and a handful of people realized that they were all working on aspects of the same thing.

The world according to Wavelets is a good book. Certainly a lot of researchers were women but I wouldn't get too hung up on spooks if I were you.

No one is saying they're arbitrary, try not to be so binary. But not all men are masculine and certainly some are feminine.

>What she's saying is that there are other equally interesting equations out there where we aren't focusing on lightspeed.
I guess I can agree with that, but I don't see what it has to do with it being a "sexed equation."

Yes, I can definitely agree with you there. But I would still say they are more masculine than they are feminine, even if they have feminine qualities and try to act like a female.

The exact moment this happened was when Sartre published Being and Nothingness. That was the gateway to the bastardized Heidegger and the neutered Nietzsche that led directly to Derrida.

All roads lead to/from Derrida?

Again in this case it boils down to a dick measuring contest, like I'm using the most extreme situations and variables in my equations and that's real science. Scientists are of course above all this so it gets overlooked. This is part of how it's so genius, you have a group of people making out they're removed from petty human feelings and such and she steps in and is like actually you are behaving in this way.

>But I would still say they are more masculine than they are feminine
Oh lord.... whatever you need to sleep at night bro.

Is this how you actually think constants are created? Because they are extreme? Is Pi extreme? Avogadro's constant? Is the Plank length feminine then because it is small?

They are named because they are useful. Usually demonstrating a relation or ratio between things. The fastest possible transmittance in a reference frame is a useful thing to know if one wishes to investigate the properties of the physical world.

>Boys answered that they would kill themselves mostly.
the fuck

This

c^2 isn't named

So?

>Either masculinity and femininity are intrinsically tied into being a man/woman or the concepts cannot exist
wut. gender being a social construct may or may not be true but I don't understand how it'd be self contradictory

it's useful, as it is a key component of e = mc^2

No, it's not useful. As it only occurs in the mass-energy equivalency. The speed of light, however, occurs in different multiples, or different powers in many different equations.

Well, traps are a different matter because they are changing their biology to make themselves more feminine. So I will make an exception for traps and femboys. But as far as the average man goes, I think even if a man acts 'feminine', he is still masculine by definition because masculinity is defined but what men are like, therefore, unless they explicitly try otherwise, the vast majority of men are masculine. This is even more true with women. Also, the definitions of masculinity and femininity change with time and different context.

>merely verbal dispute

>it only occurs in the mass-energy equivalency
Massive assumption based on very little

What are you on about?

Don't be obtuse. But I'll be clearer. Multiples/powers of c are more recurrent than c^2.

Autism

QED

>when leftist """"""scholars"""""" talk about science

Sokal actively misquoted Irigaray. What real academic work has that dude even done?

Low iq

That's funny cause Sokal is a leftist scientist.

If you're scrolling past this thread and read this: don't read any more of the thread - all of the pseuds in here waxing philosophical about the meaning of this quote will only make you lose brain cells.

a shitload of physics and some math:
phdtree.org/scholar/sokal-alan-david/publication/

I think what you think are physics papers are more hoax papers. For someone at his stage of career that isn't very good and he's typically getting the bitch seat.

I wish you had posted earlier.

>mfw mathematician reading this thread

Do you agree or disagree with the quote? Please enlighten us with your holy knowledge,o wise mathematician

Maybe one day I'll see a comprehensive critique of French leftism. Maybe.

>For someone at his stage of career that isn't very good

Sorry, but you are talking out of your ass.

>so many people here can't even competently grasp the quote let alone criticize it
>"This is just whining"

just use fucking google you troglodytes. I wish people on Veeky Forums would at least acquaint themselves with a rudimentary, wikipedia page level description of what is going on before commenting if they haven't been exposed previously.

>using the actual quote
She never said that you dipshit. She did speak about fluid mechanics in a gendered way, but the quotation in the OP is made up and misattributed.

Source: 5 minutes with google

>an ambiguous representation of a line of logic can only be interpreted as the original author intended it to be interpreted!!!

honestly, instead of bragging about having superior knowledge to everyone in this thread why son't you add something instead of a fucking cartoon picture and a pretentious statement claiming youre a math

When modern man began to realize that they kind of knew everything that can be known about the human condition (in part due to the tremendous history of philosophy...and history, which presided)

An awful lot of his publications and h-index are from his academic dishonesty bro. He's gamed the system.

It's worked out for the guy but it's not really the path of a good academic.

that is pretty cool, but how can you justify the image in the OP?

So, person in OPs pic, was reprimanding God?

It's supposed to be provocative. It's not an hypothesis.

i can't tell ONE french philosopher that wasn't irrelevant or shit

you tell 'em, random 19yr old guy who has never read a french philosopher in their life

im actually a 32 year old top culinary specialist at applebees that dropped out of my philosphy program 12 years ago because i knew more than all of my professors. shut up kid

I'm confused, has anyone on this board ever heard of Rene Guenon?

applebees: where structuralism goes to die

also $1 margaritas

what a deal

quite the connoisseur i see

>t. retard
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luce_Irigaray#Controverses

MOTHER NATURE IS SEXIST BECAUSE MOUNTAINS KINDA LOOK LIKE BOOBIES, AND TREES KINDA LOOK LIKE PEE PEES AND THE MOUNTAINS ARE MUCH BIGGER, WE NEED TO CUT THE MOUNTAINS DOWN, OR AT LEAST COVER UP THEIR OPEN INDECENT EXPOSURE

its funny when you don't come up with a single relevant nor not shit guy

mountain looks like giant penises and the sun rising through it is like the act of cum, extremely dionysiac

post pic of your chod

i don't get why people get so angry at this. who cares if it's bullshit, isn't it fun to think about?

>who cares if it's bullshit, isn't it fun to think about?
In what way? Whats the point? Whats the meaning? What sense is it grounded in? Fun to think about, how, why, what? Fun to think about what? what is being thought about? what is being thought about? what is being thought about? What is there to think about in relation to the "bullshit"? well played if this is b8 m8

triggers the type of kid who likes ted talks

cringe