4 ms·

Argggh. Professors! You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense

Argggh. Professors! You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense not to. BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?!

edco 9y ago
>Foucault is actually readable well that's just not true
paganel 9y ago
> BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?! He is, indeed, even though I've read him in Romanian translation and the translator seems to have done a very good job, because when I skimmed through the English translations of his works the flow of words (or whatever the English term is for that) seemed a lot more complicated and convoluted. It also helps that both Romanian and French are Romance languages, so that maybe helped. What is indeed really tough to process is anything written by Deleuze and Guattari. I've read Deleuze's "Cinéma I: L'image-mouvement" and "Cinéma II: L'image-temps" in original French and at many points while reading it I was feeling like I was riding a boat on a river, I was just going with the words/phrases without really processing what they meant, if they were really meaning anything. Though "Qu'est-ce que la philosophie?" (written by Deleuze and Guattari) is a lot more readable.
Emma_Goldman 9y ago
"BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?!" This suggests that you have never bothered to read Foucault. He is extremely readable.
- igravious 9y ago
  Come on Emma_Goldman. Don't do that. Why possibly alienate a potential reader of Foucault? You don't know what path jstewartmobile took to get them to this point. Though it may not be universally true – and it certainly might be unjustified – the Continentals (Derrida & co.) aren't exactly known for their lucid crystalline prose.
  - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
    What? Well, given their dismissal of the whole of the humanities, and the ridicule with which they spoke about Foucault, I doubt they're going to be reading The History of Sexuality or The Archaeology of Knowledge anytime soon. Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? Some 'continental philosophers' are difficult to read. Derrida is a spectacularly bad writer, for instance. Foucault is not one of them however. Discipline & Punish is about as readable as Dickens IMO.
    - igravious 9y ago
      > Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? I think so? :) Read it again – You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense not to. (Emphasis mine.) They are saying that there are trivial and non-trivial works in the humanities. Some non-trivial works are great works. You could nitpick those non-trivial works--even the great ones-- but you'd be wrong to because while you're busy at that you're missing the wood for the trees. To me it sounds like they've read quite a few texts from the humanities, just not Foucault.
      - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
        Ah okay, I'll go with your more charitable reading! I'm just very used to people dismissing an entire cultural and philosophical movement based on hearsay. It's not that hard to just pick up and read Foucault, Derrida, etc., and find out for yourself.
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    Thanks igravious for helping a brotha out!
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Nope. The original remark was made with the hope of getting someone else to read Foucault. Not so much a fan as a fellow traveler though, since my sympathies are more in line with the Jacques Ellul / Ivan Illych direction.
  - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
    My bad! RE: Christian anarchists / Tolstoy I read Maxim Gorky's My Universities recently - a novel about his coming-of-age in late 19th century Russia. The reigning philosophy that rears its head again and again is Tolstoyan, that Gorky tries to press his Marxism against. Interesting cultural battle!
    - jstewartmobile 9y ago
      I was talking about this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich) rather than the Tolstoy character, but same deal.

edco 9y ago

>Foucault is actually readable well that's just not true

paganel 9y ago

> BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?! He is, indeed, even though I've read him in Romanian translation and the translator seems to have done a very good job, because when I skimmed through the English translations of his works the flow of words (or whatever the English term is for that) seemed a lot more complicated and convoluted. It also helps that both Romanian and French are Romance languages, so that maybe helped. What is indeed really tough to process is anything written by Deleuze and Guattari. I've read Deleuze's "Cinéma I: L'image-mouvement" and "Cinéma II: L'image-temps" in original French and at many points while reading it I was feeling like I was riding a boat on a river, I was just going with the words/phrases without really processing what they meant, if they were really meaning anything. Though "Qu'est-ce que la philosophie?" (written by Deleuze and Guattari) is a lot more readable.

Emma_Goldman 9y ago

"BTW, Foucault is actually readable. Who knew?!" This suggests that you have never bothered to read Foucault. He is extremely readable.

igravious 9y ago
Come on Emma_Goldman. Don't do that. Why possibly alienate a potential reader of Foucault? You don't know what path jstewartmobile took to get them to this point. Though it may not be universally true – and it certainly might be unjustified – the Continentals (Derrida & co.) aren't exactly known for their lucid crystalline prose.
- Emma_Goldman 9y ago
  What? Well, given their dismissal of the whole of the humanities, and the ridicule with which they spoke about Foucault, I doubt they're going to be reading The History of Sexuality or The Archaeology of Knowledge anytime soon. Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? Some 'continental philosophers' are difficult to read. Derrida is a spectacularly bad writer, for instance. Foucault is not one of them however. Discipline & Punish is about as readable as Dickens IMO.
  - igravious 9y ago
    > Or am I being too defensive, and mis-judging the post? I think so? :) Read it again – You could nitpick the absolute shit out of any non-trivial work in the humanities--even the great ones--but most people have enough sense not to. (Emphasis mine.) They are saying that there are trivial and non-trivial works in the humanities. Some non-trivial works are great works. You could nitpick those non-trivial works--even the great ones-- but you'd be wrong to because while you're busy at that you're missing the wood for the trees. To me it sounds like they've read quite a few texts from the humanities, just not Foucault.
    - Emma_Goldman 9y ago
      Ah okay, I'll go with your more charitable reading! I'm just very used to people dismissing an entire cultural and philosophical movement based on hearsay. It's not that hard to just pick up and read Foucault, Derrida, etc., and find out for yourself.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Thanks igravious for helping a brotha out!
jstewartmobile 9y ago
Nope. The original remark was made with the hope of getting someone else to read Foucault. Not so much a fan as a fellow traveler though, since my sympathies are more in line with the Jacques Ellul / Ivan Illych direction.
- Emma_Goldman 9y ago
  My bad! RE: Christian anarchists / Tolstoy I read Maxim Gorky's My Universities recently - a novel about his coming-of-age in late 19th century Russia. The reigning philosophy that rears its head again and again is Tolstoyan, that Gorky tries to press his Marxism against. Interesting cultural battle!
  - jstewartmobile 9y ago
    I was talking about this guy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich) rather than the Tolstoy character, but same deal.