The label "pseud" is interesting, because...

The label "pseud" is interesting, because, while it is often used to discredit via ad hominem the efforts of French poststructuralism, since the latter is usually interpreted as a destabilization of meaning and the opening of philosophy to unrigorous, interested argumentation, it is therefore assumed that it *enables* this mode of argumentation to pass for truth, instead of seeing this indeterminacy as a crucial, if not the only, philosophical problem remaining, a problem which has, of course, been there from the beginning. But when that problem is assumed to be unsolvable, it becomes easy to suggest that people claiming to have a workable solution haven't done their homework. Those people, who trot out arguments borrowed from the eminent philosophers (because, on a forum, it's really impossible to do anything more than borrow from the past), are then called pseuds: as if to bring in actual philosophy somehow asserts that one cannot be taking it seriously enough to know that it is "unsolvable." So the irony is that using pseud to attack postmodernists actually implies that you deeply believe their fundamental thesis as you see it, which is that it ultimately doesn't matter what you say at all.

Stop talking like pseud, pseud.

i remember being in high school and writing stuff like this trying to sound smart

It's sad how desperate some people are for validation.

i know. how desperate do you have to be to make yourself seem mature by telling people on Veeky Forums they sound like high schoolers

Your writing is disturbing

>telling people on Veeky Forums they sound like high schoolers

He didn't say that.

I got bored, but I rewrote the opening sentences of your post because it is a clusterfuck..

"The label "psued" is an ad hominem attack on French poststructuralism, which is usually interpreted as a destabilization of meaning and the opening of philosophy to unrigorous argumentation. Under this interpretation, it is assumed that the lack of meaning is allowed to pass for truth itself, instead of seeing this indeterminacy as a crucial, if not the only, philosophical problem remaining. When this problem is assumed to be unsolvable, it becomes easy to suggest that people claiming to have a workable solution haven't done their homework..."

You need to seriously work on editing your arguments if you want anyone to read and consider your ideas. Try to use shorter sentences, re-read what you've written and search for words to omit without losing meaning.

Good advice.

Hi-jacking this thread with no survivors
My friend tries too hard to sound smart when he talks. What do?
t. We're seniors in college. He's in philosophy club. I was in it last year but it was pretty dead so I bailed

Your presentation of your ideas is terrible, and all of your conclusion, your premise, and the way you connect the two are quite wrong.