I devoted a several years to studying continental / post-structuralist philosophy (Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Butler, Irigary, et al), and while I can't claim

I devoted a several years to studying continental / post-structuralist philosophy (Deleuze, Foucault, Derrida, Butler, Irigary, et al), and while I can't claim any authoritative knowledge I'd say I've at least done my homework, and I have to agree with Chomsky. Post-structuralism essentially begins from the feeling that the rigor of modernism/structuralism is stuffy and oppressive. Post-structuralism's main project, then, is to deny the kind of stuffy rigor typical of the sciences any privileged position - that is, to deny that it is more correct than any other type of analysis. This is done through a variety of means, but you can find a good summary in [1]. The works in this area employ a dauntingly huge set of concepts that often serve as a barrier to entry and mystifier for outsiders. Science/mathematics is typically only donned to give a philosophers work an intimidating edifice to the non-mathematically inclined - see Badiou for a great example of this with set/category theory. Overall, it's a questionable project that seems to contribute little - see [2] for a good summary of this. Overall, skip it if you can. [1]: http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf http://philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf [2]: https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/SchwartzmanMar'00.pdf https://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/SchwartzmanMar'00.pdf